From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 27 19:03:20 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D7216A46D; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:03:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D1EB13C4A6; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:03:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 1BD6B1A4D89; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:01:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:01:00 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20070827190100.GY87451@elvis.mu.org> References: <20070824215515.GF16131@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20070824.172212.74696955.imp@bsdimp.com> <200708270850.20904.jhb@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200708270850.20904.jhb@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, peterjeremy@optushome.com.au, cvs-all@freebsd.org, deischen@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, Warner Losh , yar@comp.chem.msu.su Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:03:20 -0000 * John Baldwin [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