From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 18 16:24:23 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA9216A4CE; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:24:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.village.org [168.103.84.182]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 145EF43D41; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:24:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.13.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2IGLitW048250; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:21:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:21:44 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20050318.092144.41681517.imp@bsdimp.com> To: scottl@samsco.org From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: <423A8A51.1070209@samsco.org> References: <423A86D9.5030504@portaone.com> <20050318.005008.71126625.imp@bsdimp.com> <423A8A51.1070209@samsco.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: danfe@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: sobomax@portaone.com cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: das@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/msun/i387 fenv.c fenv.h X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:24:23 -0000 From: Scott Long Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/msun/i387 fenv.c fenv.h Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:59:13 -0700 > Warner Losh wrote: > > From: Maxim Sobolev > > Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/msun/i387 fenv.c fenv.h > > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:44:25 +0200 > > > > > >>David Schultz wrote: > >> > >>>On Thu, Mar 17, 2005, Warner Losh wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>>You had better bump the version number for libm before 6.0 rolls > >>>>>around!! I've just found a 3rd party binary-only package that > >>>>>supports 'FreeBSD 5.x' but is linked against libm.so.2. Ugh. We > >>>>>need to bury that mistake and NOT make it again. > >>>> > >>>>6.0 already has /lib/libm.so.3 > >>> > >>> > >>>So does 5.3. I think Scott's point is that if we're going to bump > >>>it for 6.X at all, we had better do it soon or risk running into > >>>the same mess we had before. I agree with that, although at > >>>present I don't know of a compelling reason to do the bump the > >>>libm version number at all. > >> > >>Haven't several functions been removed from -CURRENT version of libm > >>recently? IMHO this provides sufficient reason for version bump. > >>Actually I think it makes sense to bump all libraries automatically when > >>-CURRENT goes one major number up. There is just no much sense in > >>preserving partial compatibility. > > > > > > One of the problems with an overly agressive bumping is that if you > > bump, you have to bump *EVERYTHING* that depends on the library to get > > true compatbility, even the ports (and have different majors build > > based on using libc.so.5 vs libc.so.6, a real pita). When I looked > > into the major abi issues we had a while ago, I came to this > > conclusion. I also came to the conclusion that we'd be better off > > keeping compatibility and *NEVER* bumping a fundamental library's > > major number to avoid these problems. Alas, no one listens to me, > > It's because you are proposing something that is impossible to achieve > in real life. We could to the 'or' part of my proposal: bump everything. Right now we don't have binary compatibility for anything but the most trivial of cases. Warner