Why don't Unix/Linux systems traverse through directories until they find the required version of a linked library? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InConfusion about linking boost library while compilationIs it possible to configure dynamic loader for an executableI am getting an error while loading shared libraries libXm.so.3Satisfying lib dependencyError while building snipersim: “relocation R_X86_64_32S against `.rodata.str1.1' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC”How do I find the libraries this program needs for its environment variable?How to regain access to the lost user , linux3 , of two side by side Ubuntu 16.04 instances?Where do C# executables running on an Ubuntu Linux 16.04 desktop which use source code that DLLImport's shared objects look for them at runtime?Cannot find shared object file even though it's in library pathPlaced library in /usr/lib, but ldconfig doesn't put it in cache
Limit the amount of RAM Mathematica may access?
What do the Banks children have against barley water?
How was Skylab's orbit inclination chosen?
Is three citations per paragraph excessive for undergraduate research paper?
aging parents with no investments
Could JWST stay at L2 "forever"?
Families of ordered set partitions with disjoint blocks
Unbreakable Formation vs. Cry of the Carnarium
I looked up a future colleague on linkedin before I started a job. I told my colleague about it and he seemed surprised. Should I apologize?
Is the gradient of the self-intersections of a curve zero?
How to manage monthly salary
What is this 4-propeller plane?
What does "rabbited" mean/imply in this sentence?
Why is Grand Jury testimony secret?
Did USCIS resume its biometric service for UK visa?
is usb on wall sockets live all the time with out switches off
How are circuits which use complex ICs normally simulated?
Can't find the latex code for the ⍎ (down tack jot) symbol
I see my dog run
Evaluating number of iteration with a certain map with While
Spanish for "widget"
Springs with some finite mass
Where to refill my bottle in India?
Why don't Unix/Linux systems traverse through directories until they find the required version of a linked library?
Why don't Unix/Linux systems traverse through directories until they find the required version of a linked library?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InConfusion about linking boost library while compilationIs it possible to configure dynamic loader for an executableI am getting an error while loading shared libraries libXm.so.3Satisfying lib dependencyError while building snipersim: “relocation R_X86_64_32S against `.rodata.str1.1' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC”How do I find the libraries this program needs for its environment variable?How to regain access to the lost user , linux3 , of two side by side Ubuntu 16.04 instances?Where do C# executables running on an Ubuntu Linux 16.04 desktop which use source code that DLLImport's shared objects look for them at runtime?Cannot find shared object file even though it's in library pathPlaced library in /usr/lib, but ldconfig doesn't put it in cache
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
I have a binary executable named "alpha" that requires a linked library (libz.so.1.2.7) which is placed at /home/username/myproduct/lib/libz.so.1.2.7
I export the same to my terminal instance before spawning my binary executable by executing the following command.
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/username/myproduct/lib/:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH
Now, when I spawn another application "bravo" that requires the same library but of different version, i.e (libz.so.1.2.8) which is available in/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libz.so.1.2.8, system throws the following error.
version `ZLIB_1.2.3.3' not found (required by /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libxml2.so.2)
If I unset the LD_LIBRARY_PATH, "bravo" starts up fine. I understand that the above behaviour is because LD_LIBRARY_PATH takes precedence over the directory paths defined in /etc/ld.so.conf while looking for linked libraries and consequently the above error occurred. I am just curious about why have not the developers of UNIX/LINUX designed the OS to search for linked libraries in other directories according to the hierarchy if the first instance of library is of different version.
Simply put, UNIX/LINUX systems traverse through a set of directories until it finds the required library. But why does it not do the same until it finds the expected version rather than accepting the first instance of library irrespective of its version?
libraries dynamic-linking shared-library ld
New contributor
daedalus_hamlet is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I have a binary executable named "alpha" that requires a linked library (libz.so.1.2.7) which is placed at /home/username/myproduct/lib/libz.so.1.2.7
I export the same to my terminal instance before spawning my binary executable by executing the following command.
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/username/myproduct/lib/:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH
Now, when I spawn another application "bravo" that requires the same library but of different version, i.e (libz.so.1.2.8) which is available in/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libz.so.1.2.8, system throws the following error.
version `ZLIB_1.2.3.3' not found (required by /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libxml2.so.2)
If I unset the LD_LIBRARY_PATH, "bravo" starts up fine. I understand that the above behaviour is because LD_LIBRARY_PATH takes precedence over the directory paths defined in /etc/ld.so.conf while looking for linked libraries and consequently the above error occurred. I am just curious about why have not the developers of UNIX/LINUX designed the OS to search for linked libraries in other directories according to the hierarchy if the first instance of library is of different version.
Simply put, UNIX/LINUX systems traverse through a set of directories until it finds the required library. But why does it not do the same until it finds the expected version rather than accepting the first instance of library irrespective of its version?
libraries dynamic-linking shared-library ld
New contributor
daedalus_hamlet is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I'm not quite sure, but I'd guess for security. I personally would rather not have to worry about a sym-link anywhere on my machines
– Joe
15 hours ago
@Joe Many of the libraries themselves have symlinks pointing to them.libz.so.1is a symlink tolibz.so.1.2.8
– Nasir Riley
15 hours ago
add a comment |
I have a binary executable named "alpha" that requires a linked library (libz.so.1.2.7) which is placed at /home/username/myproduct/lib/libz.so.1.2.7
I export the same to my terminal instance before spawning my binary executable by executing the following command.
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/username/myproduct/lib/:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH
Now, when I spawn another application "bravo" that requires the same library but of different version, i.e (libz.so.1.2.8) which is available in/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libz.so.1.2.8, system throws the following error.
version `ZLIB_1.2.3.3' not found (required by /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libxml2.so.2)
If I unset the LD_LIBRARY_PATH, "bravo" starts up fine. I understand that the above behaviour is because LD_LIBRARY_PATH takes precedence over the directory paths defined in /etc/ld.so.conf while looking for linked libraries and consequently the above error occurred. I am just curious about why have not the developers of UNIX/LINUX designed the OS to search for linked libraries in other directories according to the hierarchy if the first instance of library is of different version.
Simply put, UNIX/LINUX systems traverse through a set of directories until it finds the required library. But why does it not do the same until it finds the expected version rather than accepting the first instance of library irrespective of its version?
libraries dynamic-linking shared-library ld
New contributor
daedalus_hamlet is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I have a binary executable named "alpha" that requires a linked library (libz.so.1.2.7) which is placed at /home/username/myproduct/lib/libz.so.1.2.7
I export the same to my terminal instance before spawning my binary executable by executing the following command.
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/username/myproduct/lib/:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH
Now, when I spawn another application "bravo" that requires the same library but of different version, i.e (libz.so.1.2.8) which is available in/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libz.so.1.2.8, system throws the following error.
version `ZLIB_1.2.3.3' not found (required by /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libxml2.so.2)
If I unset the LD_LIBRARY_PATH, "bravo" starts up fine. I understand that the above behaviour is because LD_LIBRARY_PATH takes precedence over the directory paths defined in /etc/ld.so.conf while looking for linked libraries and consequently the above error occurred. I am just curious about why have not the developers of UNIX/LINUX designed the OS to search for linked libraries in other directories according to the hierarchy if the first instance of library is of different version.
Simply put, UNIX/LINUX systems traverse through a set of directories until it finds the required library. But why does it not do the same until it finds the expected version rather than accepting the first instance of library irrespective of its version?
libraries dynamic-linking shared-library ld
libraries dynamic-linking shared-library ld
New contributor
daedalus_hamlet is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
daedalus_hamlet is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 11 hours ago
Stephen Kitt
180k25412492
180k25412492
New contributor
daedalus_hamlet is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 15 hours ago
daedalus_hamletdaedalus_hamlet
715
715
New contributor
daedalus_hamlet is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
daedalus_hamlet is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
daedalus_hamlet is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I'm not quite sure, but I'd guess for security. I personally would rather not have to worry about a sym-link anywhere on my machines
– Joe
15 hours ago
@Joe Many of the libraries themselves have symlinks pointing to them.libz.so.1is a symlink tolibz.so.1.2.8
– Nasir Riley
15 hours ago
add a comment |
I'm not quite sure, but I'd guess for security. I personally would rather not have to worry about a sym-link anywhere on my machines
– Joe
15 hours ago
@Joe Many of the libraries themselves have symlinks pointing to them.libz.so.1is a symlink tolibz.so.1.2.8
– Nasir Riley
15 hours ago
I'm not quite sure, but I'd guess for security. I personally would rather not have to worry about a sym-link anywhere on my machines
– Joe
15 hours ago
I'm not quite sure, but I'd guess for security. I personally would rather not have to worry about a sym-link anywhere on my machines
– Joe
15 hours ago
@Joe Many of the libraries themselves have symlinks pointing to them.
libz.so.1 is a symlink to libz.so.1.2.8– Nasir Riley
15 hours ago
@Joe Many of the libraries themselves have symlinks pointing to them.
libz.so.1 is a symlink to libz.so.1.2.8– Nasir Riley
15 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
But why does it not do the same until it finds the expected version rather than accepting the first instance of library irrespective of its version?
It does, as far as it’s aware. zlib.so.1.2.7 and zlib.so.1.2.8 both have an soname of zlib.so.1, so your alpha and bravo binaries say they need zlib.so.1. The dynamic loader loads the first matching library it finds; it doesn’t know that version 1.2.8 provides additional symbols which bravo needs. (This is why distributions take pains to specify additional dependency information, such as zlib1g (>= 1.2.8) for bravo.)
You might think this should be easy to fix, but it isn’t, not least because binaries and libraries list the symbols they need separately from the libraries they need, so the loader can’t check that a given library provides all the symbols that are needed from it. Symbols can be provided in a variety of ways, and introducing a link between symbols and the libraries providing them could break existing binaries. There’s also the added fun of symbol interposition to complicate things (and make security-sensitive developers tear their hair out).
Some libraries provide version information which ends up being stored in .gnu.version_r, with a link to the providing library, which would help here, but libz isn’t one of them.
(Given the sonames, I’d expect your alpha binary to work fine with zlib.so.1.2.8.)
And one should note as well that GNU-style library versioning is different from the semantic(-ish) versioning with which we are most accustomed. Since they have the same "current" number, 1, zlib.so.1.2.8 should not provide any features that zlib.so.1.2.7 does not, hence it ought not to matter (from an ABI perspective) which one is found. That it does matter should be considered a flaw.
– John Bollinger
6 hours ago
1
@John no, the only guarantee is that libraries with the same soname are backwards-compatible; newer libraries can add features, they can’t remove any or change any in a backwards-incompatible fashion. That is to say, a binary built against zlib 1.2.7 will work with that or any newer zlib 1; but a binary built against zlib 1.2.8 won’t necessarily work with an older zlib 1. (And semantic versioning allows that; but soname handling isn’t semantic versioning.)
– Stephen Kitt
6 hours ago
I'm talking specifically about GNU conventions, as I said, and I guess about libtool in particular. Not every project follows that convention, so perhaps it's too strong to call zlib flawed, but on the other hand, even a semantic-versioning interpretation of the library version numbers involved would come to the same conclusion. Forwards (binary) compatibility in such cases is not a promise inherent in the soname, but it is a reasonable expectation in this case.
– John Bollinger
6 hours ago
@John I understood that, but you can’t interpret the first number in the soname aslibtool’s “current” number in its CRA system. And semantic versioning only requires that you increment the second value when adding features; so technically, yes, zlib gets this wrong and should have gone from 1.2.7 to 1.3.0, but not to 2.0.0 and keeping the same soname is fine even from a semantic perspective (IMO).
– Stephen Kitt
6 hours ago
1
@John right, I suspect we’re in violent agreement and that I misunderstood the point you were making.zlibdoesn’t uselibtoolanyway, except on Darwin where it’sar;-).
– Stephen Kitt
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
daedalus_hamlet is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f511380%2fwhy-dont-unix-linux-systems-traverse-through-directories-until-they-find-the-re%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
But why does it not do the same until it finds the expected version rather than accepting the first instance of library irrespective of its version?
It does, as far as it’s aware. zlib.so.1.2.7 and zlib.so.1.2.8 both have an soname of zlib.so.1, so your alpha and bravo binaries say they need zlib.so.1. The dynamic loader loads the first matching library it finds; it doesn’t know that version 1.2.8 provides additional symbols which bravo needs. (This is why distributions take pains to specify additional dependency information, such as zlib1g (>= 1.2.8) for bravo.)
You might think this should be easy to fix, but it isn’t, not least because binaries and libraries list the symbols they need separately from the libraries they need, so the loader can’t check that a given library provides all the symbols that are needed from it. Symbols can be provided in a variety of ways, and introducing a link between symbols and the libraries providing them could break existing binaries. There’s also the added fun of symbol interposition to complicate things (and make security-sensitive developers tear their hair out).
Some libraries provide version information which ends up being stored in .gnu.version_r, with a link to the providing library, which would help here, but libz isn’t one of them.
(Given the sonames, I’d expect your alpha binary to work fine with zlib.so.1.2.8.)
And one should note as well that GNU-style library versioning is different from the semantic(-ish) versioning with which we are most accustomed. Since they have the same "current" number, 1, zlib.so.1.2.8 should not provide any features that zlib.so.1.2.7 does not, hence it ought not to matter (from an ABI perspective) which one is found. That it does matter should be considered a flaw.
– John Bollinger
6 hours ago
1
@John no, the only guarantee is that libraries with the same soname are backwards-compatible; newer libraries can add features, they can’t remove any or change any in a backwards-incompatible fashion. That is to say, a binary built against zlib 1.2.7 will work with that or any newer zlib 1; but a binary built against zlib 1.2.8 won’t necessarily work with an older zlib 1. (And semantic versioning allows that; but soname handling isn’t semantic versioning.)
– Stephen Kitt
6 hours ago
I'm talking specifically about GNU conventions, as I said, and I guess about libtool in particular. Not every project follows that convention, so perhaps it's too strong to call zlib flawed, but on the other hand, even a semantic-versioning interpretation of the library version numbers involved would come to the same conclusion. Forwards (binary) compatibility in such cases is not a promise inherent in the soname, but it is a reasonable expectation in this case.
– John Bollinger
6 hours ago
@John I understood that, but you can’t interpret the first number in the soname aslibtool’s “current” number in its CRA system. And semantic versioning only requires that you increment the second value when adding features; so technically, yes, zlib gets this wrong and should have gone from 1.2.7 to 1.3.0, but not to 2.0.0 and keeping the same soname is fine even from a semantic perspective (IMO).
– Stephen Kitt
6 hours ago
1
@John right, I suspect we’re in violent agreement and that I misunderstood the point you were making.zlibdoesn’t uselibtoolanyway, except on Darwin where it’sar;-).
– Stephen Kitt
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
But why does it not do the same until it finds the expected version rather than accepting the first instance of library irrespective of its version?
It does, as far as it’s aware. zlib.so.1.2.7 and zlib.so.1.2.8 both have an soname of zlib.so.1, so your alpha and bravo binaries say they need zlib.so.1. The dynamic loader loads the first matching library it finds; it doesn’t know that version 1.2.8 provides additional symbols which bravo needs. (This is why distributions take pains to specify additional dependency information, such as zlib1g (>= 1.2.8) for bravo.)
You might think this should be easy to fix, but it isn’t, not least because binaries and libraries list the symbols they need separately from the libraries they need, so the loader can’t check that a given library provides all the symbols that are needed from it. Symbols can be provided in a variety of ways, and introducing a link between symbols and the libraries providing them could break existing binaries. There’s also the added fun of symbol interposition to complicate things (and make security-sensitive developers tear their hair out).
Some libraries provide version information which ends up being stored in .gnu.version_r, with a link to the providing library, which would help here, but libz isn’t one of them.
(Given the sonames, I’d expect your alpha binary to work fine with zlib.so.1.2.8.)
And one should note as well that GNU-style library versioning is different from the semantic(-ish) versioning with which we are most accustomed. Since they have the same "current" number, 1, zlib.so.1.2.8 should not provide any features that zlib.so.1.2.7 does not, hence it ought not to matter (from an ABI perspective) which one is found. That it does matter should be considered a flaw.
– John Bollinger
6 hours ago
1
@John no, the only guarantee is that libraries with the same soname are backwards-compatible; newer libraries can add features, they can’t remove any or change any in a backwards-incompatible fashion. That is to say, a binary built against zlib 1.2.7 will work with that or any newer zlib 1; but a binary built against zlib 1.2.8 won’t necessarily work with an older zlib 1. (And semantic versioning allows that; but soname handling isn’t semantic versioning.)
– Stephen Kitt
6 hours ago
I'm talking specifically about GNU conventions, as I said, and I guess about libtool in particular. Not every project follows that convention, so perhaps it's too strong to call zlib flawed, but on the other hand, even a semantic-versioning interpretation of the library version numbers involved would come to the same conclusion. Forwards (binary) compatibility in such cases is not a promise inherent in the soname, but it is a reasonable expectation in this case.
– John Bollinger
6 hours ago
@John I understood that, but you can’t interpret the first number in the soname aslibtool’s “current” number in its CRA system. And semantic versioning only requires that you increment the second value when adding features; so technically, yes, zlib gets this wrong and should have gone from 1.2.7 to 1.3.0, but not to 2.0.0 and keeping the same soname is fine even from a semantic perspective (IMO).
– Stephen Kitt
6 hours ago
1
@John right, I suspect we’re in violent agreement and that I misunderstood the point you were making.zlibdoesn’t uselibtoolanyway, except on Darwin where it’sar;-).
– Stephen Kitt
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
But why does it not do the same until it finds the expected version rather than accepting the first instance of library irrespective of its version?
It does, as far as it’s aware. zlib.so.1.2.7 and zlib.so.1.2.8 both have an soname of zlib.so.1, so your alpha and bravo binaries say they need zlib.so.1. The dynamic loader loads the first matching library it finds; it doesn’t know that version 1.2.8 provides additional symbols which bravo needs. (This is why distributions take pains to specify additional dependency information, such as zlib1g (>= 1.2.8) for bravo.)
You might think this should be easy to fix, but it isn’t, not least because binaries and libraries list the symbols they need separately from the libraries they need, so the loader can’t check that a given library provides all the symbols that are needed from it. Symbols can be provided in a variety of ways, and introducing a link between symbols and the libraries providing them could break existing binaries. There’s also the added fun of symbol interposition to complicate things (and make security-sensitive developers tear their hair out).
Some libraries provide version information which ends up being stored in .gnu.version_r, with a link to the providing library, which would help here, but libz isn’t one of them.
(Given the sonames, I’d expect your alpha binary to work fine with zlib.so.1.2.8.)
But why does it not do the same until it finds the expected version rather than accepting the first instance of library irrespective of its version?
It does, as far as it’s aware. zlib.so.1.2.7 and zlib.so.1.2.8 both have an soname of zlib.so.1, so your alpha and bravo binaries say they need zlib.so.1. The dynamic loader loads the first matching library it finds; it doesn’t know that version 1.2.8 provides additional symbols which bravo needs. (This is why distributions take pains to specify additional dependency information, such as zlib1g (>= 1.2.8) for bravo.)
You might think this should be easy to fix, but it isn’t, not least because binaries and libraries list the symbols they need separately from the libraries they need, so the loader can’t check that a given library provides all the symbols that are needed from it. Symbols can be provided in a variety of ways, and introducing a link between symbols and the libraries providing them could break existing binaries. There’s also the added fun of symbol interposition to complicate things (and make security-sensitive developers tear their hair out).
Some libraries provide version information which ends up being stored in .gnu.version_r, with a link to the providing library, which would help here, but libz isn’t one of them.
(Given the sonames, I’d expect your alpha binary to work fine with zlib.so.1.2.8.)
edited 15 hours ago
answered 15 hours ago
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
180k25412492
180k25412492
And one should note as well that GNU-style library versioning is different from the semantic(-ish) versioning with which we are most accustomed. Since they have the same "current" number, 1, zlib.so.1.2.8 should not provide any features that zlib.so.1.2.7 does not, hence it ought not to matter (from an ABI perspective) which one is found. That it does matter should be considered a flaw.
– John Bollinger
6 hours ago
1
@John no, the only guarantee is that libraries with the same soname are backwards-compatible; newer libraries can add features, they can’t remove any or change any in a backwards-incompatible fashion. That is to say, a binary built against zlib 1.2.7 will work with that or any newer zlib 1; but a binary built against zlib 1.2.8 won’t necessarily work with an older zlib 1. (And semantic versioning allows that; but soname handling isn’t semantic versioning.)
– Stephen Kitt
6 hours ago
I'm talking specifically about GNU conventions, as I said, and I guess about libtool in particular. Not every project follows that convention, so perhaps it's too strong to call zlib flawed, but on the other hand, even a semantic-versioning interpretation of the library version numbers involved would come to the same conclusion. Forwards (binary) compatibility in such cases is not a promise inherent in the soname, but it is a reasonable expectation in this case.
– John Bollinger
6 hours ago
@John I understood that, but you can’t interpret the first number in the soname aslibtool’s “current” number in its CRA system. And semantic versioning only requires that you increment the second value when adding features; so technically, yes, zlib gets this wrong and should have gone from 1.2.7 to 1.3.0, but not to 2.0.0 and keeping the same soname is fine even from a semantic perspective (IMO).
– Stephen Kitt
6 hours ago
1
@John right, I suspect we’re in violent agreement and that I misunderstood the point you were making.zlibdoesn’t uselibtoolanyway, except on Darwin where it’sar;-).
– Stephen Kitt
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
And one should note as well that GNU-style library versioning is different from the semantic(-ish) versioning with which we are most accustomed. Since they have the same "current" number, 1, zlib.so.1.2.8 should not provide any features that zlib.so.1.2.7 does not, hence it ought not to matter (from an ABI perspective) which one is found. That it does matter should be considered a flaw.
– John Bollinger
6 hours ago
1
@John no, the only guarantee is that libraries with the same soname are backwards-compatible; newer libraries can add features, they can’t remove any or change any in a backwards-incompatible fashion. That is to say, a binary built against zlib 1.2.7 will work with that or any newer zlib 1; but a binary built against zlib 1.2.8 won’t necessarily work with an older zlib 1. (And semantic versioning allows that; but soname handling isn’t semantic versioning.)
– Stephen Kitt
6 hours ago
I'm talking specifically about GNU conventions, as I said, and I guess about libtool in particular. Not every project follows that convention, so perhaps it's too strong to call zlib flawed, but on the other hand, even a semantic-versioning interpretation of the library version numbers involved would come to the same conclusion. Forwards (binary) compatibility in such cases is not a promise inherent in the soname, but it is a reasonable expectation in this case.
– John Bollinger
6 hours ago
@John I understood that, but you can’t interpret the first number in the soname aslibtool’s “current” number in its CRA system. And semantic versioning only requires that you increment the second value when adding features; so technically, yes, zlib gets this wrong and should have gone from 1.2.7 to 1.3.0, but not to 2.0.0 and keeping the same soname is fine even from a semantic perspective (IMO).
– Stephen Kitt
6 hours ago
1
@John right, I suspect we’re in violent agreement and that I misunderstood the point you were making.zlibdoesn’t uselibtoolanyway, except on Darwin where it’sar;-).
– Stephen Kitt
5 hours ago
And one should note as well that GNU-style library versioning is different from the semantic(-ish) versioning with which we are most accustomed. Since they have the same "current" number, 1, zlib.so.1.2.8 should not provide any features that zlib.so.1.2.7 does not, hence it ought not to matter (from an ABI perspective) which one is found. That it does matter should be considered a flaw.
– John Bollinger
6 hours ago
And one should note as well that GNU-style library versioning is different from the semantic(-ish) versioning with which we are most accustomed. Since they have the same "current" number, 1, zlib.so.1.2.8 should not provide any features that zlib.so.1.2.7 does not, hence it ought not to matter (from an ABI perspective) which one is found. That it does matter should be considered a flaw.
– John Bollinger
6 hours ago
1
1
@John no, the only guarantee is that libraries with the same soname are backwards-compatible; newer libraries can add features, they can’t remove any or change any in a backwards-incompatible fashion. That is to say, a binary built against zlib 1.2.7 will work with that or any newer zlib 1; but a binary built against zlib 1.2.8 won’t necessarily work with an older zlib 1. (And semantic versioning allows that; but soname handling isn’t semantic versioning.)
– Stephen Kitt
6 hours ago
@John no, the only guarantee is that libraries with the same soname are backwards-compatible; newer libraries can add features, they can’t remove any or change any in a backwards-incompatible fashion. That is to say, a binary built against zlib 1.2.7 will work with that or any newer zlib 1; but a binary built against zlib 1.2.8 won’t necessarily work with an older zlib 1. (And semantic versioning allows that; but soname handling isn’t semantic versioning.)
– Stephen Kitt
6 hours ago
I'm talking specifically about GNU conventions, as I said, and I guess about libtool in particular. Not every project follows that convention, so perhaps it's too strong to call zlib flawed, but on the other hand, even a semantic-versioning interpretation of the library version numbers involved would come to the same conclusion. Forwards (binary) compatibility in such cases is not a promise inherent in the soname, but it is a reasonable expectation in this case.
– John Bollinger
6 hours ago
I'm talking specifically about GNU conventions, as I said, and I guess about libtool in particular. Not every project follows that convention, so perhaps it's too strong to call zlib flawed, but on the other hand, even a semantic-versioning interpretation of the library version numbers involved would come to the same conclusion. Forwards (binary) compatibility in such cases is not a promise inherent in the soname, but it is a reasonable expectation in this case.
– John Bollinger
6 hours ago
@John I understood that, but you can’t interpret the first number in the soname as
libtool’s “current” number in its CRA system. And semantic versioning only requires that you increment the second value when adding features; so technically, yes, zlib gets this wrong and should have gone from 1.2.7 to 1.3.0, but not to 2.0.0 and keeping the same soname is fine even from a semantic perspective (IMO).– Stephen Kitt
6 hours ago
@John I understood that, but you can’t interpret the first number in the soname as
libtool’s “current” number in its CRA system. And semantic versioning only requires that you increment the second value when adding features; so technically, yes, zlib gets this wrong and should have gone from 1.2.7 to 1.3.0, but not to 2.0.0 and keeping the same soname is fine even from a semantic perspective (IMO).– Stephen Kitt
6 hours ago
1
1
@John right, I suspect we’re in violent agreement and that I misunderstood the point you were making.
zlib doesn’t use libtool anyway, except on Darwin where it’s ar ;-).– Stephen Kitt
5 hours ago
@John right, I suspect we’re in violent agreement and that I misunderstood the point you were making.
zlib doesn’t use libtool anyway, except on Darwin where it’s ar ;-).– Stephen Kitt
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
daedalus_hamlet is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
daedalus_hamlet is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
daedalus_hamlet is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
daedalus_hamlet is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f511380%2fwhy-dont-unix-linux-systems-traverse-through-directories-until-they-find-the-re%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I'm not quite sure, but I'd guess for security. I personally would rather not have to worry about a sym-link anywhere on my machines
– Joe
15 hours ago
@Joe Many of the libraries themselves have symlinks pointing to them.
libz.so.1is a symlink tolibz.so.1.2.8– Nasir Riley
15 hours ago