Problem with .so numbering on FreeBSD in contrast to Linux
scdbackup at gmx.net
Fri Feb 20 23:07:50 PST 2009
Sam Lawrance wrote:
That description is similar to what i experience
on my Linux system but not to what i see on the
FreeBSD server where i do my tests:
FreeBSD 6.3-RELEASE-p5 (KEVEREST-6.3) #0: Thu Oct 9 13:54:44 ART 2008
There is only one number after .so whereas
policies-shlib.html talks of major.minor.
So obviously my ./libtool resp. the programs used
inside do not follow this convention.
(autotools is not my personal choice. It was
already in use when i became upstream of libburn.
Its main advantage is its social standing in
the community of distro packagers.)
Jeremy Messenger wrote:
That's hard to read but seems to be exactly about
I'll explore that. "ltmain.sh" is mentioned.
Maybe i can do a private hack in my copy of it.
This code snippet looks promising:
case $version_type in
current=`expr $number_major + $number_minor`
Is "ltverhack" a piece of software ?
(Can i have a look at it somewhere ?)
> <mezz7> Why do libtool have to be weird? 600 - 600..
> couldn't it be simple to just 0? :-)
It is confusing that the libtool documentation
talks about a .so numbering scheme which would
allow to demand a upper and lower limits for LT_AGE
at link time.
Neither Linux nor FreeBSD seem to implement that
scheme. It would be very convenient though.
All in all, as upstream, i would love to trash .so
in total. With my apps i take care to provide
statically linked versions as alternative to the
But, sigh, the world wants DLLs.
Many thanks for your help.
Have a nice day :)
More information about the freebsd-ports