Re: MFC of bump in libcom_err.so another mistake?

Sean McNeil wrote:
> 
> On Jan 31, 2006, at 3:52 PM, Robert Watson wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Sean McNeil wrote:
>>
>>> I was wondering if this was on purpose.  Seems like there is no good 
>>> reason that it was done on -STABLE and it has really messed up 
>>> everything here for me.
>>>
>>> libcom_err.so.2 bumped to libcom_err.so.3.
>>
>> It was on purpose, but not necessarily for a good reason.  Could you 
>> be more specific about "really messed up everything here for me", 
>> which sounds a lot to me like "and all hell broken loose"?  I assume 
>> there's some sort of library and application versioning problem, but 
>> some details would be helpful.
> 
> I had several big packages that depended on kerberos and they all broke 
> because:
> 
> 1) libcom_err.so.2.1 was moved to /usr/local/lib/compat/pkg/
> 2) The symlink libcom_err.so.2 was removed and nothing was placed in 
> compat.
> 
> I finally got smart and just added an entry to libmap.conf and so I'm 
> not "really messed up...".  That was not accurate in the first place :)
> 
>> In principle, other than potentially requiring compat libs to run old 
>> binaries even though that may not strictly have been necessary, it 
>> seems likely that a binary depending on the old libcom_err depends 
>> also on an old libc.  On the other hand, I consider library version 
>> number interactions to be mysterious, and likely have missed the 
>> point.  :-)
> 
> The point I am making is that this is in the -STABLE tree, not the 
> -CURRENT tree.  There is no bump of libc and I don't see any reason for 
> the libcom_err.so revision bump in -STABLE.  IMHO, it didn't make sense.

Do you, by any chance, have security/heimdal installed? If so, this 
seems like a portupgrade job.

Cheers,

Panagiotis