cvs commit: src/lib/msun/i387 fenv.c fenv.h

[Scott Long]

Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-Mar-18 01:13:57 -0700, Scott Long wrote:
> 
>>No, I think that what he's worried about is that you have port foo that
>>generates a library called libfoo.so.1, and that library is linked
>>against libm.so.2.  You then have port bar that generates a binary
>>linked against libfoo.so.1 and libm.so.2.  Now lets say that libm.so.2
>>gets bumped to libm.so.3, and you also rebuild port bar.  Now bar is
>>linked to libfoo.so.1 and libm.so.3, but libfoo.so.1 is still linked
>>against libm.so.2;
> 
> 
> Is it worthwhile checking (and warning) about this condition?  Possible
> options include:
> 1) ld-elf.so learning that a .so is make up of a name and a version number
>    and whinging if an executable attempts to load two shared libraries with
>    the same name and different versions.

This would definitely be good to have for diagnostic purposes, whether
the mythical library versioning happens or not.

> 2) ld(1) whinging (and failing) if the shared libraries on the command
>    line would result in the final executable being linked against two
>    different versions of a shared library.

As you point out below, this does nothing for dlopen(), and I don't
think that it'll provide enough useful information for end users.

> 3) portupgrade (or even port dependency checking) doing an 'ldd' on each
>    dependency and either complaining or rebuilding any where the dependency
>    predates a library bump.  (Doing this properly probably means building
>    the port then discovering that it now needs multiple .so versions and
>    having to rebuild it after cleaning up the offending dependency).

Yes, this would be interesting to have also.

Scott