How To Get libm.so.4?

[Shakul M Hameed]

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 |