--o7gdRJTuwFmWapyH
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=
=20
> >>>>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,=
=20
> >>>>libc.so.12.150 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=
=20
> >>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.
>=20
> Whoa! What I'm talking about is a nuthead who might have written quite a=
=20
> 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=
=20
> remove shared libraries, because we think that noone will need them. I'm=
=20
> questioning if that is a wise conclusion.

Yes, it's wise, considering how ELF dynamic linking and versioning
works.

> 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.

--=20
Quentin Garnier - cube@cubidou.net - 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.

--o7gdRJTuwFmWapyH
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (NetBSD)

iQEVAwUBRqUY8NgoQloHrPnoAQJaMAf/UaIFDcn3uEAvEWIvcRw/6TKvkKgIdrrA
dcCzvkNGWsPEiybl8GTlFyETl0KiAczLlmJXHNiIHR9zOFOVYtZ5KTSMOzkMy4xo
837aBqbrErsBtfTcFXq8rX55TFINWlzeVQ/hLLsiHhQGyD5iswSnVH3nYFWnZmyo
oFk+2xtm6bEoH1Ub9u/Ig3F/nLroOuvab2zmvlhq/VwR0XtA/bzVW3Y+5UK7ujH9
iXX7kAiS5Gq4DIEU8h2TS39C7QyNAxqYZGcrtutjFYb85IalBv3loYSBTNfRlK4O
FZ8e13Y7Ykvm8rX7cyt2R/+9srWJr8OR/CbNF+rODvHbkkk6B3XNPw==
=BWi1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--o7gdRJTuwFmWapyH--