Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:03:29 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@portaone.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: das@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/msun/i387 fenv.c fenv.h Message-ID: <423A8B51.3010609@portaone.com> 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, and > they make incompatible changes (like removing functions), so we're > stuck in the false belief that major numbers are going to save us.[*] What's the problem with ports? I think one who want to run older ports on newer system can install compatXX package, no? -Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?423A8B51.3010609>