Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:13:30 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: deischen@freebsd.org Cc: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com> Subject: Re: HEADS-UP new statfs structure Message-ID: <16309.21386.164910.449768@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10311141645540.7284-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <16309.19433.564671.856750@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10311141645540.7284-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Eischen writes: > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > > > Kirk McKusick writes: > > > > > > > > And mail/postfix and devel/gnomevfs2 (ones's i've found so far) > > > > <...> > > > > > This is why we make this change now so that it will be in place > > > for the masses when 5.2 is released :-) > > > > Can't we bump the libc version so that dynamically linked, non-system > > binaries can continue to work? Having things like postfix and gnome > > dumping core seems excessivly bumpy. Upgrading all ports is a pain. > > I don't think that's a good idea. I've also got changes in > mind that require a libc version bump, but they aren't ready > now. I was saving them for 6.0. Other folks may also have > similar changes in mind. Do we really want to have yet another > version bump? It costs ~1MB in disk space for each libc bump, yes that's expensive. But so is having many random, non-system applications bomb after you upgrade. Shooting all early adopters in the head is really bad for PR. I think that 1MB of disk space is worth it. > For 6.0, can we start off libc at libc.so.YYYYMMDD and move it Yes! Yes! Drew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16309.21386.164910.449768>