shared library pain with 6.0-RELEASE : .so.600 ??

[Joe Rhett]

On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:02:24AM +0900, Alexander Nedotsukov wrote:
> First. .600 have nothing in common with FreeBSD release-tag. Those 
> numbers belong to GNOME/GTK libraries release cycle. Second. Basically 
> multiple library versions co-existence is not so rosy as you probably 
> think. Even if you solve header files conflicts there are a lot of 
> software which alloc/dealloc various kind of resources across modules, 
> libraries which  extensively use static data etc. etc. etc. This will 
> lead to very weird run-time behavior.

I know, but unless the package system comes up with some maintainable way
to track .so version numbers and can determine if/when to add symblic
links...  having to hack around this stuff is silly.  Having to rebuild
every package is likewise silly.

> But on the good note I'd happy to tell that those frequent shared 
> library bumps was due bug in GNU autohell tools used by GNOME/GTK 
> software authors. This problem addressed in GNOME 2.12 FreeBSD port 
> which just hit the repository. So this is a last time you required to 
> step through massive rebuild w/o a good reason for that.

So clarify for me -- if I do the gnome-upgrade.sh upgrade to 2.12, this
will recompile every package that needs these libraries?  Or give me more
new library changes that will need yet more symbolic links?

> Joe Rhett wrote:
> >Out of curiosity, why does 6.0-RELEASE ship with packages that install
> >shared libraries with .so.600 version numbers?
> >
> >It appears that installing nearly any port requires that all these
> >libraries get rebuild and reinstalled, followed by manually creating
> >symlinks to the .so.600 versions that everything is linked against.
> >
> >1. Shouldn't library ports allow multiple versions to be installed, rather
> >than forcing a deinstall?  libIDL is the most common dependancy culprit,
> >and with 5.x we ended up with 3 different symbolic links to make everything
> >happy. (unmaintainable, manually hacked into place symbolic links which
> >work around problems in the packages database)
> >
> >2. Why did 6.0-RELEASE (and I think other releases in the past too?) name
> >the shared libraries with a release-tag version?  Is there some logic to
> >this that escapes me?  It only strikes me as painful for all the obvious
> >reasons.
> >
> >  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

-- 
Joe Rhett
senior geek
SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation