Date: 16 Nov 2000 04:54:11 -0800 From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG, roger@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: libc shlib version Message-ID: <vqchf586psc.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1001115230410.7945A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> (Daniel Eischen's message of "Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:10:04 -0500 (EST)") References: <vqc1ywcsttb.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1001115230410.7945A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> * > 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. Roger said it breaks precompiled binaries, meaning if you do a make world, the new libc_r will not be compatible with some of the old binaries. That sounds like a situation where we need the libc_r shlib version to protect us from, no? Roger, can you clarify? Satoshi 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?vqchf586psc.fsf>