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 In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) 2019 Community Moderator Election ResultsConfusion 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

What information about me do stores get via my credit card?

should truth entail possible truth

Do working physicists consider Newtonian mechanics to be "falsified"?

What's the point in a preamp?

Is every episode of "Where are my Pants?" identical?

For what reasons would an animal species NOT cross a *horizontal* land bridge?

Didn't get enough time to take a Coding Test - what to do now?

Sub-subscripts in strings cause different spacings than subscripts

Mortgage adviser recommends a longer term than necessary combined with overpayments

Presidential Pardon

Why are PDP-7-style microprogrammed instructions out of vogue?

Did the UK government pay "millions and millions of dollars" to try to snag Julian Assange?

Is an up-to-date browser secure on an out-of-date OS?

Loose spokes after only a few rides

Can the Right Ascension and Argument of Perigee of a spacecraft's orbit keep varying by themselves with time?

Homework question about an engine pulling a train

Simulating Exploding Dice

My body leaves; my core can stay

60's-70's movie: home appliances revolting against the owners

Does Parliament need to approve the new Brexit delay to 31 October 2019?

Can a flute soloist sit?

US Healthcare consultation for visitors

The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG 1397BC53640DB551

Drawing vertical/oblique lines in Metrical tree (tikz-qtree, tipa)



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 In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
2019 Community Moderator Election ResultsConfusion 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;








17















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?










share|improve this question









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
    Apr 9 at 7:08











  • @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
    Apr 9 at 7:24

















17















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?










share|improve this question









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
    Apr 9 at 7:08











  • @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
    Apr 9 at 7:24













17












17








17


1






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?










share|improve this question









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






share|improve this question









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.











share|improve this question









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.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 9 at 11:23









Stephen Kitt

181k25414493




181k25414493






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 Apr 9 at 6:48









daedalus_hamletdaedalus_hamlet

915




915




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
    Apr 9 at 7:08











  • @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
    Apr 9 at 7:24

















  • 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
    Apr 9 at 7:08











  • @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
    Apr 9 at 7:24
















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
Apr 9 at 7:08





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
Apr 9 at 7:08













@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
Apr 9 at 7:24





@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
Apr 9 at 7:24










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















28















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.)






share|improve this answer

























  • 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
    Apr 9 at 15:40







  • 4





    @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
    Apr 9 at 15:49







  • 1





    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
    Apr 9 at 16:01







  • 1





    Yes, I well understand the relationship between CRA numbers and SOVERSION, which comes back around to my original point: the situation described by the OP seems to be inconsistent with correct usage of the CRA scheme. Avoiding problems such as the OP's is one of the key objectives of that scheme. If zlib adds a new (version of a) binary interface, then its C number ought to be increased. That such a bump may lead to a soversion bump as well is secondary.

    – John Bollinger
    Apr 9 at 16:32







  • 2





    @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
    Apr 9 at 16:38











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.









draft saved

draft discarded


















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









28















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.)






share|improve this answer

























  • 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
    Apr 9 at 15:40







  • 4





    @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
    Apr 9 at 15:49







  • 1





    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
    Apr 9 at 16:01







  • 1





    Yes, I well understand the relationship between CRA numbers and SOVERSION, which comes back around to my original point: the situation described by the OP seems to be inconsistent with correct usage of the CRA scheme. Avoiding problems such as the OP's is one of the key objectives of that scheme. If zlib adds a new (version of a) binary interface, then its C number ought to be increased. That such a bump may lead to a soversion bump as well is secondary.

    – John Bollinger
    Apr 9 at 16:32







  • 2





    @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
    Apr 9 at 16:38















28















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.)






share|improve this answer

























  • 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
    Apr 9 at 15:40







  • 4





    @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
    Apr 9 at 15:49







  • 1





    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
    Apr 9 at 16:01







  • 1





    Yes, I well understand the relationship between CRA numbers and SOVERSION, which comes back around to my original point: the situation described by the OP seems to be inconsistent with correct usage of the CRA scheme. Avoiding problems such as the OP's is one of the key objectives of that scheme. If zlib adds a new (version of a) binary interface, then its C number ought to be increased. That such a bump may lead to a soversion bump as well is secondary.

    – John Bollinger
    Apr 9 at 16:32







  • 2





    @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
    Apr 9 at 16:38













28












28








28








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.)






share|improve this answer
















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.)







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 9 at 7:23

























answered Apr 9 at 7:17









Stephen KittStephen Kitt

181k25414493




181k25414493












  • 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
    Apr 9 at 15:40







  • 4





    @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
    Apr 9 at 15:49







  • 1





    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
    Apr 9 at 16:01







  • 1





    Yes, I well understand the relationship between CRA numbers and SOVERSION, which comes back around to my original point: the situation described by the OP seems to be inconsistent with correct usage of the CRA scheme. Avoiding problems such as the OP's is one of the key objectives of that scheme. If zlib adds a new (version of a) binary interface, then its C number ought to be increased. That such a bump may lead to a soversion bump as well is secondary.

    – John Bollinger
    Apr 9 at 16:32







  • 2





    @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
    Apr 9 at 16:38

















  • 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
    Apr 9 at 15:40







  • 4





    @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
    Apr 9 at 15:49







  • 1





    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
    Apr 9 at 16:01







  • 1





    Yes, I well understand the relationship between CRA numbers and SOVERSION, which comes back around to my original point: the situation described by the OP seems to be inconsistent with correct usage of the CRA scheme. Avoiding problems such as the OP's is one of the key objectives of that scheme. If zlib adds a new (version of a) binary interface, then its C number ought to be increased. That such a bump may lead to a soversion bump as well is secondary.

    – John Bollinger
    Apr 9 at 16:32







  • 2





    @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
    Apr 9 at 16:38
















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
Apr 9 at 15:40






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
Apr 9 at 15:40





4




4





@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
Apr 9 at 15:49






@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
Apr 9 at 15:49





1




1





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
Apr 9 at 16:01






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
Apr 9 at 16:01





1




1





Yes, I well understand the relationship between CRA numbers and SOVERSION, which comes back around to my original point: the situation described by the OP seems to be inconsistent with correct usage of the CRA scheme. Avoiding problems such as the OP's is one of the key objectives of that scheme. If zlib adds a new (version of a) binary interface, then its C number ought to be increased. That such a bump may lead to a soversion bump as well is secondary.

– John Bollinger
Apr 9 at 16:32






Yes, I well understand the relationship between CRA numbers and SOVERSION, which comes back around to my original point: the situation described by the OP seems to be inconsistent with correct usage of the CRA scheme. Avoiding problems such as the OP's is one of the key objectives of that scheme. If zlib adds a new (version of a) binary interface, then its C number ought to be increased. That such a bump may lead to a soversion bump as well is secondary.

– John Bollinger
Apr 9 at 16:32





2




2





@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
Apr 9 at 16:38





@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
Apr 9 at 16:38










daedalus_hamlet is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

getting Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender working in the command lineHow to connect to CheckPoint VPN on Ubuntu 18.04LTS?Will the Linux ( red-hat ) Open VPNC Client connect to checkpoint or nortel VPN gateways?VPN client for linux machine + support checkpoint gatewayVPN SSL Network Extender in FirefoxLinux Checkpoint SNX tool configuration issuesCheck Point - Connect under Linux - snx + OTPSNX VPN Ububuntu 18.XXUsing Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender CLI with certificateVPN with network manager (nm-applet) is not workingWill the Linux ( red-hat ) Open VPNC Client connect to checkpoint or nortel VPN gateways?VPN client for linux machine + support checkpoint gatewayImport VPN config files to NetworkManager from command lineTrouble connecting to VPN using network-manager, while command line worksStart a VPN connection with PPTP protocol on command linestarting a docker service daemon breaks the vpn networkCan't connect to vpn with Network-managerVPN SSL Network Extender in FirefoxUsing Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender CLI with certificate

대한민국 목차 국명 지리 역사 정치 국방 경제 사회 문화 국제 순위 관련 항목 각주 외부 링크 둘러보기 메뉴북위 37° 34′ 08″ 동경 126° 58′ 36″ / 북위 37.568889° 동경 126.976667°  / 37.568889; 126.976667ehThe Korean Repository문단을 편집문단을 편집추가해Clarkson PLC 사Report for Selected Countries and Subjects-Korea“Human Development Index and its components: P.198”“http://www.law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%EB%AF%BC%EA%B5%AD%EA%B5%AD%EA%B8%B0%EB%B2%95”"한국은 국제법상 한반도 유일 합법정부 아니다" - 오마이뉴스 모바일Report for Selected Countries and Subjects: South Korea격동의 역사와 함께한 조선일보 90년 : 조선일보 인수해 혁신시킨 신석우, 임시정부 때는 '대한민국' 국호(國號) 정해《우리가 몰랐던 우리 역사: 나라 이름의 비밀을 찾아가는 역사 여행》“남북 공식호칭 ‘남한’‘북한’으로 쓴다”“Corea 대 Korea, 누가 이긴 거야?”국내기후자료 - 한국[김대중 前 대통령 서거] 과감한 구조개혁 'DJ노믹스'로 최단기간 환란극복 :: 네이버 뉴스“이라크 "韓-쿠르드 유전개발 MOU 승인 안해"(종합)”“해외 우리국민 추방사례 43%가 일본”차기전차 K2'흑표'의 세계 최고 전력 분석, 쿠키뉴스 엄기영, 2007-03-02두산인프라, 헬기잡는 장갑차 'K21'...내년부터 공급, 고뉴스 이대준, 2008-10-30과거 내용 찾기mk 뉴스 - 구매력 기준으로 보면 한국 1인당 소득 3만弗과거 내용 찾기"The N-11: More Than an Acronym"Archived조선일보 최우석, 2008-11-01Global 500 2008: Countries - South Korea“몇년째 '시한폭탄'... 가계부채, 올해는 터질까”가구당 부채 5000만원 처음 넘어서“‘빚’으로 내몰리는 사회.. 위기의 가계대출”“[경제365] 공공부문 부채 급증…800조 육박”“"소득 양극화 다소 완화...불평등은 여전"”“공정사회·공생발전 한참 멀었네”iSuppli,08年2QのDRAMシェア・ランキングを発表(08/8/11)South Korea dominates shipbuilding industry | Stock Market News & Stocks to Watch from StraightStocks한국 자동차 생산, 3년 연속 세계 5위자동차수출 '현대-삼성 웃고 기아-대우-쌍용은 울고' 과거 내용 찾기동반성장위 창립 1주년 맞아Archived"중기적합 3개업종 합의 무시한 채 선정"李대통령, 사업 무분별 확장 소상공인 생계 위협 질타삼성-LG, 서민업종인 빵·분식사업 잇따라 철수상생은 뒷전…SSM ‘몸집 불리기’ 혈안Archived“경부고속도에 '아시안하이웨이' 표지판”'철의 실크로드' 앞서 '말(言)의 실크로드'부터, 프레시안 정창현, 2008-10-01“'서울 지하철은 안전한가?'”“서울시 “올해 안에 모든 지하철역 스크린도어 설치””“부산지하철 1,2호선 승강장 안전펜스 설치 완료”“전교조, 정부 노조 통계서 처음 빠져”“[Weekly BIZ] 도요타 '제로 이사회'가 리콜 사태 불러들였다”“S Korea slams high tuition costs”““정치가 여론 양극화 부채질… 합리주의 절실””“〈"`촛불집회'는 민주주의의 질적 변화 상징"〉”““촛불집회가 민주주의 왜곡 초래””“국민 65%, "한국 노사관계 대립적"”“한국 국가경쟁력 27위‥노사관계 '꼴찌'”“제대로 형성되지 않은 대한민국 이념지형”“[신년기획-갈등의 시대] 갈등지수 OECD 4위…사회적 손실 GDP 27% 무려 300조”“2012 총선-대선의 키워드는 '국민과 소통'”“한국 삶의 질 27위, 2000년과 2008년 연속 하위권 머물러”“[해피 코리아] 행복점수 68점…해외 평가선 '낙제점'”“한국 어린이·청소년 행복지수 3년 연속 OECD ‘꼴찌’”“한국 이혼율 OECD중 8위”“[통계청] 한국 이혼율 OECD 4위”“오피니언 [이렇게 생각한다] `부부의 날` 에 돌아본 이혼율 1위 한국”“Suicide Rates by Country, Global Health Observatory Data Repository.”“1. 또 다른 차별”“오피니언 [편집자에게] '왕따'와 '패거리 정치' 심리는 닮은꼴”“[미래한국리포트] 무한경쟁에 빠진 대한민국”“대학생 98% "외모가 경쟁력이라는 말 동의"”“특급호텔 웨딩·200만원대 유모차… "남보다 더…" 호화病, 고질병 됐다”“[스트레스 공화국] ① 경쟁사회, 스트레스 쌓인다”““매일 30여명 자살 한국, 의사보다 무속인에…””“"자살 부르는 '우울증', 환자 중 85% 치료 안 받아"”“정신병원을 가다”“대한민국도 ‘묻지마 범죄’,안전지대 아니다”“유엔 "학생 '성적 지향'에 따른 차별 금지하라"”“유엔아동권리위원회 보고서 및 번역본 원문”“고졸 성공스토리 담은 '제빵왕 김탁구' 드라마 나온다”“‘빛 좋은 개살구’ 고졸 취업…실습 대신 착취”원본 문서“정신건강, 사회적 편견부터 고쳐드립니다”‘소통’과 ‘행복’에 목 마른 사회가 잠들어 있던 ‘심리학’ 깨웠다“[포토] 사유리-곽금주 교수의 유쾌한 심리상담”“"올해 한국인 평균 영화관람횟수 세계 1위"(종합)”“[게임연중기획] 게임은 문화다-여가활동 1순위 게임”“영화속 ‘영어 지상주의’ …“왠지 씁쓸한데””“2월 `신문 부수 인증기관` 지정..방송법 후속작업”“무료신문 성장동력 ‘차별성’과 ‘갈등해소’”대한민국 국회 법률지식정보시스템"Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project: South Korea"“amp;vwcd=MT_ZTITLE&path=인구·가구%20>%20인구총조사%20>%20인구부문%20>%20 총조사인구(2005)%20>%20전수부문&oper_YN=Y&item=&keyword=종교별%20인구& amp;lang_mode=kor&list_id= 2005년 통계청 인구 총조사”원본 문서“한국인이 좋아하는 취미와 운동 (2004-2009)”“한국인이 좋아하는 취미와 운동 (2004-2014)”Archived“한국, `부분적 언론자유국' 강등〈프리덤하우스〉”“국경없는기자회 "한국, 인터넷감시 대상국"”“한국, 조선산업 1위 유지(S. Korea Stays Top Shipbuilding Nation) RZD-Partner Portal”원본 문서“한국, 4년 만에 ‘선박건조 1위’”“옛 마산시,인터넷속도 세계 1위”“"한국 초고속 인터넷망 세계1위"”“인터넷·휴대폰 요금, 외국보다 훨씬 비싸”“한국 관세행정 6년 연속 세계 '1위'”“한국 교통사고 사망자 수 OECD 회원국 중 2위”“결핵 후진국' 한국, 환자가 급증한 이유는”“수술은 신중해야… 자칫하면 생명 위협”대한민국분류대한민국의 지도대한민국 정부대표 다국어포털대한민국 전자정부대한민국 국회한국방송공사about korea and information korea브리태니커 백과사전(한국편)론리플래닛의 정보(한국편)CIA의 세계 정보(한국편)마리암 부디아 (Mariam Budia),『한국: 하늘이 내린 한 폭의 그림』, 서울: 트랜스라틴 19호 (2012년 3월)대한민국ehehehehehehehehehehehehehehWorldCat132441370n791268020000 0001 2308 81034078029-6026373548cb11863345f(데이터)00573706ge128495

Cannot Extend partition with GParted The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) 2019 Community Moderator Election ResultsCan't increase partition size with GParted?GParted doesn't recognize the unallocated space after my current partitionWhat is the best way to add unallocated space located before to Ubuntu 12.04 partition with GParted live?I can't figure out how to extend my Arch home partition into free spaceGparted Linux Mint 18.1 issueTrying to extend but swap partition is showing as Unknown in Gparted, shows proper from fdiskRearrange partitions in gparted to extend a partitionUnable to extend partition even though unallocated space is next to it using GPartedAllocate free space to root partitiongparted: how to merge unallocated space with a partition