Subject: Re: i386 elf and libc
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Michael Richardson <email@example.com>
Date: 12/09/1999 22:47:33
>>>>> "matthew" == matthew green <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
matthew> Is there any reason to have library version numbers the same across
matthew> you want to maintain what is now about 25 copies of these values for
matthew> each library? "no fscking way." actually, it's probably more like
matthew> about 10 versions but there's nothing to say that all machine_arch's
matthew> need to have the same executable format (they just do currently i
matthew> think, but i don't expect all the m68k platforms to be able switch
matthew> at exactly the same time (think boot blocks)).
Yeah, I know, but... what a pain.
matthew> It sure would have made life easier to live without COMPAT_AOUT if we
matthew> had bumped the major versions on ELF stuff!!!
matthew> probably would have saved some hassle for this, yeah. but there are still
matthew> about 4 architectures (at least) to convert to ELF. besides this transition
matthew> period, there is *every* reason to keep the shared library version numbers
matthew> the same across all ports.
Okay, how about minor versions? Some of them, libm for instance and bfd are
identical. I do *NOT* want /emul/aout if I can avoid it.
matthew> [*] note that moving to ELF brings some new features but this is
matthew> orthogonal as they are basically implementation issues.
But the files are incompatible. The argument for leaving the major numbers
the same was because of 3rd party libraries. But if you change format, then
you have to rebuild.
So, is the reason for the renames to have remained in the elf versions is
that we wouldn't want to maintain two sets of includes?
] Out and about in Ottawa. hmmm... beer. | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] email@example.com http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [