Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 14:05:48 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: No libc shared lib number bump ? Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0711091405120.17192@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <4734AE21.3020901@elischer.org> References: <200710180835.18929.thierry@herbelot.com> <47170A83.6050607@FreeBSD.org> <20071018091950.GB1546@nagual.pp.ru> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0710181038360.22190@sea.ntplx.net> <20071109141155.0ae922a1@deskjail> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0711090952001.16340@sea.ntplx.net> <20071109164301.258532a8@deskjail> <4734AE21.3020901@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Julian Elischer wrote: > Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> Quoting Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> (Fri, 9 Nov 2007 09:54:46 >> -0500 (EST)): >> >>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >>> >>>> Quoting Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> (Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:43:46 >>>> -0400 (EDT)): >>>> >>>>> (*) libc and other symbol versioned libraries may be bumped >>>>> again in 8.0 to reset the numbering scheme back to 0 (libc.so.0). >>>>> It was deemed to late in the game to do this for 7.0. >>>> I'm curious, why do we need to reset it back to .0? >>> We don't have to. It would just make things clearer to have all >>> versioned symbol libraries with the same version number since >>> they shouldn't ever have to be bumped again. Solaris has all >>> their libraries at .1. We've already used .1, but .0 has never >>> been used. obrien suggested it, and it seems to make sense >>> to me. >> >> So it's just "cosmetics"... >> >> Do we lose much if we don't do this? >> >> What we gain in not doing is, is that users of those libs don't have to >> recompile all ports. Compared to the number of FreeBSD installations in >> total the number of affected users are small, but those are the users >> which help us debug -current (and ideally "all" (sort of) >> src-committers). I think those people have more interesting things to >> do than to recompile everything. >> >> Developers which link to those libs are not affected at all if we keep >> the current numbers, as they normally don't use it. It may or may not >> affect autoconf stuff which checks based upon the number instead of a >> feature/_FreeBSD_version or uname -r. Do you have an idea how much >> ports may be affected by this? I assume you will coordinate with >> portmgr to give this change a try on an experimental ports build. >> >> While I would be happy to not have to recompile all my ports on the >> systems (3 machines, 12 jails) where I use -current, this is not an >> objection, just some food for thoughts. > > I'm pretty sure there will be future version bumps despite the assurances of > the "symbol versioning cabal" that there won't be. > So I think it should be left at 7 to allow that to happen in the future. Well, there shouldn't be. But even if there is, there is 0.0, 0.1, etc. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0711091405120.17192>