Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:45:09 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The whole libc thing. Message-ID: <200102152045.f1FKj9W88215@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:37:58 PST." <20010215123758.L3274@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20010215123758.L3274@fw.wintelcom.net> <20010215101817.G3274@fw.wintelcom.net> <200102151536.f1FFaeE77660@billy-club.village.org> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010215125446.7929A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <20010215101817.G3274@fw.wintelcom.net> <200102152034.f1FKYoW63859@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20010215123758.L3274@fw.wintelcom.net> Alfred Perlstein writes: : We'll still have libc.so that contains __sF for old apps, and the newer : stuff will be less brain damaged. We're only breaking applications : for those of us running -current. : : I'd say a large cross posted 'HEADS-UP (we mean it!)' would be enough. Alfred, you are incorrect. We're working on a long term solution that will be compatible. The HEADS-UP isn't enough. Too many things are broken. I really mean that when I say it. The solution that we're coming up with will move towards what Peter did, but what Peter did is incomplete right now and needs to be backed out until it can be made complete. Once it is complete, we can move to it without too much hassle. The biggest hassle would be that -current users MUST (and -stable users should) recompile libraries before linking to new things. Let me thread through these issue before people rush in and try to "Fix" it. We'll end up with another incomplete solution. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102152045.f1FKj9W88215>