On 2013-09-18 18:08:17 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 01:17:44PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > for the second one (MPFR trunk r8680), which yields:
> >
> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 16 2013-09-18 12:42:10 libmpfr.so -> libmpfr.so.4.1.0
> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 16 2013-09-18 12:42:10 libmpfr.so.4 -> libmpfr.so.4.1.2
> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 1913565 2013-09-18 12:42:10 libmpfr.so.4.1.0
> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 1821786 2013-09-18 12:41:21 libmpfr.so.4.1.2
> >
> > libmpfr.so.4 doesn't have the correct target!
>
> I'm not sure why you find this suprising. If libmpfr.so.4 is the
> soname, than both libmpfr.so.4.1.0 and libmpfr.so.4.1.2 are valid
> versions to point to and libmpfr.so.4.1.2 is the latest, so it
> makes sense to point to that.
Both are valid, but one may be more buggy than the other, for
instance, or at least they have different kinds of "bugs". So, there
may be a good reason to use a different version from the largest one
(I wouldn't say the latest, because in practice, due to branches and
3rd-party patches, there isn't much a notion of time ordering). Then
"make install" should create the symlinks to use the version that
has just been installed. BTW, if the user wanted to use the largest
("latest") version, why would he install another version? This doesn't
make sense!
Moreover, in most documentation, it is said that to install some
software, the process is "./configure && make && make install" (and
one assumes that the software that has just been installed is ready
to be used, if the user's path environment variables are up-to-date,
of course). But this is not the case with the current behavior.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <[email protected]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
