Darren New wrote:
> The symlink solution works OK until the upgrade from libxyz.1.2.so to 
> libxyz.1.3.so breaks the program written to use libxyz.so. And dont tell 
> me it doesn't happen, as I have not infrequently binary-edited libraries 
> to change the strings there.

BTW, that said, I think it's more like this was a problem,a nd rather than 
write code to fix the linker, people started making quicky patches using 
symlinks.

Its a quick and simple solution to something that plagues MS for years and 
years.  I just don't think it's the *right* solution.  I'm more of a code 
and API kind of programmer than a file system and file format kind of 
programmer.

>>   This is not a question of "bad configuration". 
> 
> Inadequate configuration. The program itself should be telling you which 
> versions it's compatible with, and the loader should be enforcing that. 
> The fact that you *can* do it with the file system doesn't mean that's a 
> *good* way to do it. :-)

Oh, and you'll notice that Linux goes thru all the libraries when it starts 
anyway to gather up version information, and you'll notice that GNU has 
defined a library format that has a textual description of which libraries 
you *really* want to load. Both of these are a better (IMO) solution than 
using symlinks. And not because Windows doesn't have symlinks, but because 
it's less fragile.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message