Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:29:41 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@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: <200708271529.42264.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20070827190100.GY87451@elvis.mu.org> References: <20070824215515.GF16131@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <200708270850.20904.jhb@freebsd.org> <20070827190100.GY87451@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 27 August 2007 03:01:00 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * 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) User questions. "I just upgraded via make world from 6.x to 7.0 and now I have a libc.so.6 and a libc.so.8, what happened to libc.so.7, did something go wrong??? please help!!!!" etc. And yes, I do think it's ok for -current to have rougher edges. After all, we aren't really trying to get people running -current on production systems. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200708271529.42264.jhb>