From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Nov 15 14:45:18 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 69D1437B4D7; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:45:15 -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 eAFMj1I47229; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:45:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com) To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami Subject: Re: libc shlib version In-Reply-To: Message from "David O'Brien" of "Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:29:41 PST." <20001115142941.D34085@dragon.nuxi.com> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:45:01 -0800 Message-ID: <47225.974328301@winston.osd.bsdi.com> From: Jordan Hubbard Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > We certainly can. But I didn't realize were were arguing vs. discussing > the issue. (A discussion that needs to happen sooner or later) Discussion is something one has when one has time. As it is, there will already be one FreeBSD product (a book) going out with 4.2 as it stands today since there was no other way to meet their publishing deadline and they believed our original estimate of the 15th when they set their own schedules. That's why push-backs are so painful and not simply a matter of dissapointing a few users when people ask me for release slides - the business world, with which we occasionally cooperate, can't operate to such fuzzy schedules. > Satoshi has already agreed for the most part that a shared version bump > won't fix what he wanted to fix. He will just end up putting the new So this sounds to me like we no longer need to bump it? I wish everyone could just make up their minds! If we haven't changed any interfaces in -stable since 4.1 then we don't need to bump anything. If we have, we do, that's just how shared library versions work. I don't understand all this prevarication over what would be "easy" or "difficult" since the rules on this have always been crystal clear: You change a library interface, you bump the number. If you change those interfaces in between every release, then you're stupid and deserve to lose but you still gotta bump the number. What I haven't understood at any point is just what the hell changed and why Roger Hardiman's packages broke. Anybody care to clear this up? I'm starting to wonder if we've simply been chasing a red herring the whole time and the problem has nothing to do with this since nobody involved can state anything definitive as to WHY this has to happen or even what was changed. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message