Subject: Re: Obsolete files?
To: Johnny Billquist <>
From: Quentin Garnier <>
List: current-users
Date: 07/23/2007 23:09:04
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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,=
> >>>> came up on my list...
> >>>It won't remove lib<lib>.major, but removing lib<lib>.major.minor is
> >>>fine.
> >>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 and only it.  Said
installer cares about 3rd party software, that's why old majors will
never be removed.

Quentin Garnier - -
"You could have made it, spitting out benchmarks
Owe it to yourself not to fail"
Amplifico, Spitting Out Benchmarks, Hometakes Vol. 2, 2005.

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (NetBSD)