From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Nov 15 14:17:47 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (winston.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.27.229]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 699BB37B479; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:17:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winston.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eAFMHTI46907; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:17:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com) To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Warner Losh , Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami Subject: Re: libc shlib version In-Reply-To: Message from "David O'Brien" of "Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:44:45 PST." <20001115124445.A32318@dragon.nuxi.com> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:17:29 -0800 Message-ID: <46903.974326649@winston.osd.bsdi.com> From: Jordan Hubbard Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Can we just stop arguing about this and bump the frickin' numbers already? Time is running out! - jordan > On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 12:21:02AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > > Maybe I'm crazy, but can't we find and kill the API change that caused > > this and back it out for 4.x? I suspect it was the per interface stat > > changes in the network code, but I could very well be wrong. > > We should not, the API change was one allowed by the way we bump shared > version numbers. Rather than deal with this single case, we should > consider the issue in the large. > > > These sorts of things aren't supposed to impact libc at all. Do we > > know which one caused the problem? > > Sure they are. We can add syscalls,etc al. utill the cows come home and > not bump the version number. > > -- > -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) > GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message