Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:37:31 +0100 From: "Arjan van Leeuwen" <avleeuwen@gmail.com> To: "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: libpthread shared library version number Message-ID: <d86b48730611050437p2d32c893u4ebcb13b315a93bc@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20061103042116.GA50470@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> References: <454936CA.6060308@FreeBSD.org> <20061102115058.GB10961@rambler-co.ru> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0611020824150.12236@sea.ntplx.net> <20061102140948.GA70915@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20061102182419.GC774@rambler-co.ru> <454A60E9.7020303@FreeBSD.org> <20061102214157.GC2028@rambler-co.ru> <454A6B07.3090003@FreeBSD.org> <454A6E09.9080200@errno.com> <20061103042116.GA50470@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2006/11/3, John Hay <jhay@meraka.org.za>: > > > >>>> Hmm, bumping not versioned libraries *now* and not bumping them > > >>>> again at pre-release would work, but doing it without also bumping > > >>>> "to be versioned" libraries is IMO pointless. And if we bump all > > >>>> of them now, we'll have to bump some of them again when versioning > > >>>> is turned on by default. > > >>> No, we will not have to do it. Why would we? It's -CURRENT, so that > > >>> nobody really cares about backward/forward compatibility within that > > >>> branch. > > >>> > > >> I'd very much like NOT to have to recompile all of my installed > > >> ports on my -CURRENT boxes the day we turn on symbol versioning, > > >> and that will require the shlib major bump of those libs that > > >> will provide symbol versioning. If we do the bump now, we'll > > >> have to do it again later, and that's slightly against the rule > > >> that we only bump them once inside a branch. > > > > > > Repeat after me: *we won't have to do it* since we don't generally > care > > > whether or not one have to rebuild all or some of his packages in > > > current due to some ongoing changes. > > > > Doing stuff like this adds unnecessary burden to folks running HEAD. > > The result is fewer people will track the code and less testing will be > > done. Unless there's a valid reason for doing it separately it seems > > best to wait for a point where some other change goes in that requires > > users to update their ports. > > The flip side of the argument is that if you have compiled stuff in > current, you have the capabilty to do it again, so if the versions > were bumped early enough, you only influence the apps that you have > compiled, but keep on making it possible to run current and still > use apps that was compiled for older versions of FreeBSD. So you > make if possble for more people to run current even on there desktops > and get a lot more testing milage out of current. And I'd like to add that it makes life a lot easier for companies who distribute binaries for FreeBSD 6. We obviously can't start supplying binaries for -CURRENT, so it would be nice if it would at least be possible (maybe with some effort, but that is besides the point) to run the 6-STABLE binaries on -CURRENT, so that the important developers and early adopters who run -CURRENT can use our software. Arjan van Leeuwen Opera Software ASA
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d86b48730611050437p2d32c893u4ebcb13b315a93bc>