News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017) by spion on Sunday May 03, 2020 @02:50PM (#23061023)
Why does a "default" need to exist at all at the system level? Why not just have various versions available and have version decisions be local to the software being developed/used.
Re:Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017) by mattkrause on Sunday May 03, 2020 @06:07PM (#23062242)
It doesn't, strictly speaking, and in fact, it barely does.

It's usually just a symlink from libwhatever.latest.version.number to libwhatever.so, on the theory that you probably want the latest version of the library (with all its improvements and bugfixes).

There's sometimes an intermediate symlink to the newest major versions too (libwhatever.latest.so, libwhatever.2.so), to avoid breaking changes.

Re:Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017) by ori_b on Sunday May 03, 2020 @04:45PM (#23061714)
It doesn't. Just don't install it if you don't want it.
Re:Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017) by riquito on Sunday May 03, 2020 @04:18PM (#23061555)
Security. By having defaults the operative system can share the most secure minor version of that library (or multiple major if necessary). When you have a copy of a library for each program then most of your programs will end up using obsolete or unsecure dependencies.
Re:Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017) by saagarjha on Sunday May 03, 2020 @05:28PM (#23062000)
Plus it also cuts down on disk space usage.