Subject: Re: Obsolete files?
To: Johnny Billquist <email@example.com>
From: Quentin Garnier <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/23/2007 23:09:04
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:45:04PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> Quentin Garnier skrev:
> >On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 11:58:02AM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >>Quentin Garnier skrev:
> >>>On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 02:15:16AM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >>>>Why is postinstall listing old share libraries? I don't think it's a=
> >>>>good idea to remove old shared libraries.
> >>>>Can anyone tell me why it's a good idea?
> >>>>Just upgraded one machine from 4.99.19 to 4.99.24, and among others,=
> >>>>libc.so.12.150 came up on my list...
> >>>It won't remove lib<lib>.major, but removing lib<lib>.major.minor is
> >>In a way, I'd agree. But if some nuthead links agains an explicit=20
> >>version of the shared library, things will break for that nuthead. I'm=
> >>not sure that's a good idea.
> >Said nuthead will also have his specific /bin/sh which gets
> >automatically replaced and so on.
> >Should we really care about nutheads that are not careful? You have all
> >the rights to be a nuthead, but it's either you use medication or you
> >stay aware that any automated process has a level of expectations about
> >what it is manipulating. The user is expected to change stuff in /etc,
> >not anywhere else. If he does, he's on his own.
> Whoa! What I'm talking about is a nuthead who might have written quite a=
> lot of his own programs, which are dynamically linked against a shared=20
> library, and that would be a shared library with both the major and=20
> minor version number registred.
But that's not how it works. The nuthead might consider reading some
documentation about ELF dynamic linking :-)
> Now, if he were to have linked it static, things would work just fine=20
> when he upgrades, but if he linked it dynamic, he'd be borked, since we=
> remove shared libraries, because we think that noone will need them. I'm=
> questioning if that is a wise conclusion.
Yes, it's wise, considering how ELF dynamic linking and versioning
> It don't have anything to do with anything else in the NetBSD=20
> distribution, so don't bring /etc, and other parts of the parts=20
> delivered by NetBSD into it.
The difference is that /etc needs special handling because it is assumed
to be modified by the user (well, duh), while pretty much all the rest
is assumed to be handled by build.sh/installer and only it. Said
installer cares about 3rd party software, that's why old majors will
never be removed.
Quentin Garnier - email@example.com - cube@NetBSD.org
"You could have made it, spitting out benchmarks
Owe it to yourself not to fail"
Amplifico, Spitting Out Benchmarks, Hometakes Vol. 2, 2005.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----