From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3e1162e60604191050q1ff64eacma5be80e6375f8eff@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:50:03 -0700
From: "David Leimbach" <leimy2k@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Install from CD fails
In-Reply-To: <85739117233327684de49f280be0ef8a@swtch.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <3e1162e60604190845u338bdf5cma2415dd98d024743@mail.gmail.com>
	<85739117233327684de49f280be0ef8a@swtch.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3fc757f4-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 4/19/06, Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com> wrote:
> > Is there a way to tell what version of a static library a potentially
> > old binary is linked against?  I don't like guessing games :)
>
> look at the date on the file and then 9fs dump.
>
> russ
>
>
"touch" could be problematic here then I guess?

I guess also, if in doubt, just rebuild it, and if you want extra
assurance, md5 hash the files  that are built against the latest.

Dunno could get pretty crazy with this if I wanted to I suppose.