Re: obsoleting shlibs - what's the plan

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:53:02AM -0400, Greg Troxel
wrote:

> I updated using BUILD-NetBSD from etcmanage, and then
ran 'postinstall
> fix obsolete'.  It deleted libraries that I think it
shouldn't have:

> So, I think these shouldn't have been marked obsolete,
and that in
> general that we should not obsolete previous major
shlibs, just minor
> ones (e.g., if .so.3.1 arrives we can remove .so.3.0,
but not .so.2.1).

I believe we should, these old and new libraries do not
coexist nicely.

-- 
                                Michael van Elst
Internet: mlelstvserpens.de
                                "A potential Snark may
lurk in every tree."

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 07:39:28AM +0000, David Holland
wrote:
>  > and libpthread has an explicit init call
already.
> 
> That won't, because it's a symbol and will resolve to
only one of the
> loaded instances.

That's why it also has a counter. libpthread has to check
for two
situations:
(1) Loading pthread via or as side effect of dlopen.
(2) Loading multiple pthread implementations.

Joerg