On 4/19/06, Chad Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Leimbach wrote: > > This is definitely a point of view I've not heard before, regarding > > suddenly changed but now untested binaries. However let me say that I > > have experienced this problem before. > > > > yeah, same here. i agree with Brantley's original point but one > counterpoint i can think of is that many (most?) of the bugs fixed in > shared libs fall into in the "just wrong, wrong, wrong and any > application that used this was just lucky to have worked in the first > place if it even worked at all" category. breaking one program in order > to fix the other 49 that were just lucky to have worked in the first > place could still be considered a win. however, i'm not advocating > shared libs in plan 9. the issue is made pretty much moot by having a > sane and reliable build system. build the new bins and move on with > your life... >
Is there a way to tell what version of a static library a potentially old binary is linked against? I don't like guessing games :)
