Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:59:13 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: das@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/msun/i387 fenv.c fenv.h Message-ID: <423A8A51.1070209@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20050318.005008.71126625.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20050317.233645.74714466.imp@bsdimp.com> <20050318064521.GA42508@VARK.MIT.EDU> <423A86D9.5030504@portaone.com> <20050318.005008.71126625.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Warner Losh wrote: > From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@portaone.com> > 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. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?423A8A51.1070209>