Thanks, Jeremy. For letting me know the dis-advantages softlinking in long run.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:40:46AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:40:22PM +0530, Shakul M Hameed wrote: > > I think its not a very bad idea, unless your app is dependent on a routine > > which is deprecated and > > not avaiable in the latest version of library. For testing purpose this > > should be ok. > > I disagree. It _is_ a bad idea. > > There is absolutely *no* guarantee that symbols will be identical > between two revisions of a shared library, especially across a > major revision. I'm not talking about missing symbols detected during > run-time either; I'm talking about internal changes that could affect > the operation of a program which relies on certain behaviour of > functions in that library, which has changed in a newer version (yet > kept the same function/calling semantics). > > And let's not forget about shared libraries that are linked to other > shared libraries, resulting in a dependency tree of madness, where > you'll suddenly find yourself making symlinks all over the place. (You > should use libmap.conf for this purpose anyway). > > So like I said -- it IS a bad idea. Please do not do it. > > -- > | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | > | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | > | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | > | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
