How To Get libm.so.4?
Shakul M Hameed
smohideen at mx2.labs.rootshell.ws
Fri Oct 10 07:49:54 UTC 2008
Thanks, Jeremy. For letting me know the dis-advantages softlinking in long run.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:40:46AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:40:22PM +0530, Shakul M Hameed wrote:
> > I think its not a very bad idea, unless your app is dependent on a routine which is deprecated and
> > not avaiable in the latest version of library. For testing purpose this should be ok.
> I disagree. It _is_ a bad idea.
> There is absolutely *no* guarantee that symbols will be identical
> between two revisions of a shared library, especially across a
> major revision. I'm not talking about missing symbols detected during
> run-time either; I'm talking about internal changes that could affect
> the operation of a program which relies on certain behaviour of
> functions in that library, which has changed in a newer version (yet
> kept the same function/calling semantics).
> And let's not forget about shared libraries that are linked to other
> shared libraries, resulting in a dependency tree of madness, where
> you'll suddenly find yourself making symlinks all over the place. (You
> should use libmap.conf for this purpose anyway).
> So like I said -- it IS a bad idea. Please do not do it.
> | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com |
> | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ |
> | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA |
> | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |
More information about the freebsd-questions