Problem with .so numbering on FreeBSD in contrast to Linux
scdbackup at gmx.net
Tue Feb 24 23:22:55 PST 2009
Peter Jeremy wrote:
> It's also virtually impossible to use libtool on Solaris. I've come
> to the conclusion that libtool was "designed" (using the word very
> loosely) to impede portability as much as possible.
I feel so botchy when probing and poking in
configure.ac or Makefile.am.
But autotools constitutes a common interface
and one should not underestimate its knowledge
I found out about FreeBSD .so numbering
meanwhile that libtool is right to use a
single number because the dynamic linker
insists in exact number matching anyway.
I.e. libburn.so.4.27 does not work for a
program that was linked against .so.4.25.
Still unanswered is the question why the
semantics of libtool's .so numbering differ
boldly between Linux and FreeBSD.
Problem seems to be that with a single version
number one cannot express the difference
between compatible and incompatible ABI
Obviously it was more important to allow
several versions of the same compatible
ABI, than to allow the applications to
make use of that compatibility.
For my own projects i would make the contrary
decision for now.
But i still have doubts.
Ain't there any sysadmin here who can
explain the best practice of managing
dynamic libraries on FreeBSD ?
Have a nice day :)
More information about the freebsd-ports