On 03/11/2011 17:58, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 at 10:14:35 +0100, Dominic Fandrey wrote:
>> --- code/client/cl_curl.h.orig       2011-11-03 09:57:21.000000000 +0100
>> +++ code/client/cl_curl.h    2011-11-03 09:57:34.000000000 +0100
>> @@ -40,8 +40,7 @@
>>  #elif defined(MACOS_X)
>>    #define DEFAULT_CURL_LIB "libcurl.dylib"
>>  #else
>> -  #define DEFAULT_CURL_LIB "libcurl.so.4"
>> -  #define ALTERNATE_CURL_LIB "libcurl.so.3"
>> +  #define DEFAULT_CURL_LIB "libcurl.so"
>>  #endif
> 
> This change isn't right. libcurl.so is the development symlink for libcurl:
> on a dpkg- or RPM-based system it'll only be present if you have libcurl
> development files (libcurl-dev, curl-devel or whatever). Non-developer systems
> should only have the symlink named after the SONAME (libcurl.so.4 or
> libcurl.so.3), and the real file that the symlinks point to (libcurl.so.4.2.0
> or whatever).

That's rather strange. On FreeBSD the current version is libcurl.so.6.
And the .so file always links to the currently installed version of the
library. I always thought that was the normal way of things to be.

> Allowing more than one SONAME of libcurl to be loaded is rather suspicious -
> the whole point of a SONAME is that libfoo.so.0 and libfoo.so.1 are not
> compatible, so if your binary was compiled against one particular SONAME,
> you should only be using that SONAME at runtime (and using the wrong one
> could lead to a crash or even a security vulnerability).

That the interface was changed, doesn't necessarily mean that you are
affected. If you were the game wouldn't compile in the first place.
I can see how an interface change could cause a crash, but I don't see
how it can cause security issues.
Note that there's no need to specify a version on OSX as well.

> However, Debian/Ubuntu seem to have a symlink libcurl.so.3 -> libcurl.so.4,
> which suggests that those two libraries are in fact compatible, and the
> SONAME was bumped unnecessarily.

I see it doesn't work that way. Hard coding library versions doesn't sound
like a very good idea to me, too, though.

I'll just keep the patch in my freebsd-patchset until a proper solution
comes along.


-- 
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? 
_______________________________________________
ioquake3 mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioquake.org
By sending this message I agree to love ioquake3 and libsdl.

Reply via email to