Correct a false statement made about shlibs.

Shamelessly stollen from an expert source.

Obtained from:	Peter Wemm's email reply to Satoshi

handbook/policies.sgml

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-<!-- $Id: policies.sgml,v 1.7 1996-12-10 05:54:31 asami Exp $ -->
+<!-- $Id: policies.sgml,v 1.8 1996-12-10 10:02:48 obrien Exp $ -->
 <!-- The FreeBSD Documentation Project -->
 
 <chapt><heading>Source Tree Guidelines and Policies
@@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ should be added and it should states things like:
 <label id="policies:shlib">
 </heading>
 
-<p><em>Contributed by &a.asami; and &a.obrien;.
+<p><em>Contributed by &a.asami;, &a.peter;, and &a.obrien;.
   <newline>9 December 1996.</em></p>
 
   <p>If you are adding shared library support to a port or other piece
@@ -166,8 +166,16 @@ should be added and it should states things like:
 
   <p>Stick to version numbers of the form major.minor (x.y).  Our dynamic
     linker does not handle version numbers of the form x.y.z well.  Any
-    version number after the ``y'' is ignored, and cannot be used to 
-    differentiate between two different shared library versions.
+    version number after the ``y'' (ie. the third digit) is totally ignored
+    when comparing shared lib version numbers to decide which library to
+    link with.  Given two shared libraries that differ only in the `micro'
+    revision, ld.so will link with the higher one.  Ie: if you link with
+    libfoo.so.3.3.3, the linker only records 3.3 in the headers, and will
+    link with anything starting with libfoo.so.3.(anything >= 3).(highest
+    available).
+  <p>Note that ld.so will always use the highest "minor" revision.
+    Ie: it will use libc.so.2.2 in preference to libc.so.2.0, even if the
+    program was initially linked with libc.so.2.0.
 
   <p>For non-port libraries, it is also our policy to change the
     shared library version number only once between releases.  When