No libc shared lib number bump ?

David O'Brien obrien at
Fri Nov 9 08:28:54 PST 2007

On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 04:43:01PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Quoting Daniel Eischen <deischen at> (Fri, 9 Nov 2007 09:54:46 -0500 (EST)):
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > > I'm curious, why do we need to reset it back to .0?
> > 
> > We don't have to.  It would just make things clearer to have all
> > versioned symbol libraries with the same version number since
> > they shouldn't ever have to be bumped again.  Solaris has all
> > their libraries at .1.  We've already used .1, but .0 has never
> > been used.  obrien suggested it, and it seems to make sense
> > to me.
> So it's just "cosmetics"...

It also clearly denotes the lib is symbolized.  Years from now, (if not
today) its hard to remember which .so numbers relate to which FreeBSD
releases.  So I would call it clarity instead of cosmetics.

> What we gain in not doing is, is that users of those libs don't have to
> recompile all ports. Compared to the number of FreeBSD installations in
> total the number of affected users are small, but those are the users
> which help us debug -current (and ideally "all" (sort of)
> src-committers). I think those people have more interesting things to
> do than to recompile everything.

When things like large Xorg or GNOME or KDE changes hit the Ports
Collection, one already has to practically recompile everything.. except
for figlet and jive.

Folks coming from 6.x to 7.0 will want to recompile all their ports (or
pkg_add -r).

-- David  (obrien at

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list