Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:01:00 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, peterjeremy@optushome.com.au, cvs-all@freebsd.org, deischen@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, yar@comp.chem.msu.su Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h Message-ID: <20070827190100.GY87451@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <200708270850.20904.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20070824215515.GF16131@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0708241819220.13181@sea.ntplx.net> <20070824.172212.74696955.imp@bsdimp.com> <200708270850.20904.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> [070827 05:48] wrote: > > I think it will be confusing to have missing symbols just as folks would > have thought it confusing to have 6.x ship with libc.so.8 if we had > bumped libc multiple times. I also think that just managing the > interfaces that show up in releases and -stable branches will be enough > extra bookkeeping to keep track of as it is. This is something I just don't understand, why is some psuedo-arbitrary number somehow MORE confusing/damaging than some convoluted upgrade path? The only negative (which is bs) of doing so is keeping around multiple compat libraries for the same release, which we can simply decide not to do. (meaning, for your example there does not need to be a libc.so.7 shipped in some compat package unless someone really wants to) -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070827190100.GY87451>