|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |