scottl at samsco.org
Tue Sep 20 11:45:23 PDT 2005
Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Scott Long wrote:
>>Peter Wemm wrote:
>>>Its why we're not supposed to bump library versions unless it is
>>>absolutely vitally necessary.
>>>The problem in this case seems to be that you've got two different
>>>instances of libpthread.so.X in your application space at once, and
>>>that's always going to screw you.
>>>I think we haven't heard the last of the pain that this ill-advised bump
>>>is going to cause.
>>Patches for symbol versioning are readily accepted. I vaguely recall
>>asking for a solution for this a year ago and getting ignored.
> Sure, symbol versioning would be great to have, but I still don't
> know why library versions are bumped when they don't need to be.
> It's like we've thrown up our hands and said "Something has changed
> in one or more of the libraries, and we don't know how this affects
> other libraries, so we're going to bump them all." Speaking for
> the thread libraries, they were not users of any of the changed
> ABIs -- there was no reason to bump them.
We have a very strong history of making changes in our base libraries
that have very unintended consequences. Try running the Java binaries
for 4.x, the only ones that we are certified to distribute, on 5.x or
I put this problem forward a year ago and asked for help on solving it.
It's not like I woke up one morning and decided to screw around with
the libraries for the hell of it.
More information about the freebsd-current