Subject: re: i386 elf and libc
To: Michael Richardson <email@example.com>
From: matthew green <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/10/1999 16:16:53
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.
i don't understand what you are saying here.
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.
the argument for not changing was that the were no *interface* changes
in the library. the shared library version is 100% independant of the
format and 100% dependant on the interfaces present.
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?
the renames remained because the featureset was not changed.
i agree that in an simple (eg, freebsd single architecture) world revving
every major library version would avoid the problem. but that's not what