Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 04:44:17 -0500 From: "Daniel M. Eischen" <eischen@vigrid.com> To: stable@freebsd.org Cc: asami@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libc shlib version Message-ID: <3A0FB7F1.4D0D1AC6@vigrid.com> References: <200011120651.eAC6paj79972@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <200011121918.eACJI6l40407@vashon.polstra.com> <vqcsnoxszs1.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <200011122037.eACKbJ540686@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Polstra wrote: > > In article <vqcsnoxszs1.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>, > Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote: > > * From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> > > > > * In article <200011120651.eAC6paj79972@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>, > > * Satoshi Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote: > > * > > * > It was brought to my attention that recent 40upgrade kills all the > > * > networking programs. Looking at the plists, the only thing I can > > * > think of is that libc.so.4 has somehow lost backward compatibility. > > * > > * This isn't much to go on. What are the symptoms? > > > > I don't know much either, as I haven't experienced it myself. The > > reports say core dumps from fetch, etc. Please see PR #21997. > > OK, all those failures are signal 12 == SIGSYS == non-existent signal > call. Somebody must have made a change to libc which caused it to > start using a signal call that didn't exist in 4.0-RELEASE. So yes, > I suppose that the version number of libc should be bumped. Likewise > for libc_r, if it hasn't already been bumped for this release. What a > pain -- that means yet another compatxx distribution. Why not find what was added and back it out? Aren't we going to need yet another version bump for 5.0? -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A0FB7F1.4D0D1AC6>