RE: .so version numbers for dlopen'd objects

["Paul B. Henson" <henson@acm.org>]

> From: Howard Chu
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 11:48 PM
> >>
> >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 henson henson 1773576 May 21 12:54 back_bdb-2.4.so
> >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 henson henson     864 May 21 12:54 back_bdb.la
> 
> I'd say it's a mistake to remove the version info, since modules tend to be
> intimately tied to the specific version of OpenLDAP for which they were built.

Do you mean the "-2.4" as part of the filename, or the version in the extension " so.2.10.9"?

Wouldn't the server typically be installed alongside of the appropriate modules either via the package manager or a 'make install'? I guess you could get into a scenario where you have an orphaned module floating around, but given the config would just include "module.so" and not the versioned name, having a versioned name wouldn't keep it from failing?