From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Nov 15 20:10:30 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7202137B4C5; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 20:10:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id XAA08624; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:10:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:10:04 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami Cc: Jordan Hubbard , stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: libc shlib version In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote: > * 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. > > Roger's packages is a different issue, that one was in libc_r. > According to him, it was caused by the pthread merge that occurred too > late for him to fix his ports before the (initial) ports freeze. > > Hmm. Now that I think about it, since this one is a pure > backward-incompatible library interface change, do we need to bump > libc_r's version number? IMO, no. The change to libc_r was to fix a deficiency/bug. I can tell you the exact problem if you're interested. -- Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message