Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:40:11 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU>, Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Tim Robbins <tjr@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: Library version number bumps Message-ID: <20040929124011.GB40412@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <20040929123100.GA600@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> References: <20040929030546.GE16305@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> <20040929092710.GA59303@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20040929123100.GA600@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--VrqPEDrXMn8OVzN4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 08:31:00AM -0400, Ken Smith wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 07:27:10PM +1000, Tim Robbins wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 11:05:46PM -0400, Ken Smith wrote: > > >=20 > > > >From the "Better late than never" Department... > > >=20 > > > It looks like we should probably bump the version of a couple of > > > the system libraries. With LOTS of help from Kris it looks like > > > this is the list we think needs a version bump, with the version > > > from 4.X being placed in compat4x: > > >=20 > > > libgnuregex.so.2 > > > libhistory.so.4 > > > libm.so.2 > > > libncurses.so.5 > > > libopie.so.2 > > > libpcap.so.2 > > > libreadline.so.4 > > > libwrap.so.3 > > >=20 > > > The bumps will be coming soon... > >=20 > > Why do they need to be bumped? Why use the version from 4.x? It sounds = like > > this will break a lot of 5.x binaries. > >=20 >=20 > They need to be bumped because the internal workings of the libraries > have changed in such a way that a 4.X executable will either be > un-dynamically-linkable, will fail ungracefully (seg-fault, etc), > or (worse) run but it makes assumptions that are no longer valid > thus producing incorrect results. By putting the older versions of > the libraries in the compat directory the dynamic linker will find > and link to those instead when starting the executable and since we > will have taken them from a 4.X system the executable should run just > fine. >=20 > Normally development cycles are "much more sane" (Scott's usual phrasing > for it :-) so at least in theory they're much shorter, and we don't > usually have as many "end-user-type-people" using a development branch > as we have now with the 5.X series. So the fact we do this sort of thing > hasn't been a huge issue before - the developers should know how to cope > with it. You're right - there can be 5.X based binaries that will have > problems. At this point we need to decide which old executables break > and we're opting to break the 5.X executables - at least those users > had a little bit of a warning they were using a not-for-production-use > system. We're not particularly happy about needing to do this. >=20 Can you or Kris post some additional details of what in these libraries have changed so they can't be used for 4.x binaries? Cheers, --=20 Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer --VrqPEDrXMn8OVzN4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBWq0rqRfpzJluFF4RAhnXAJwN54yu9pb73wbNKHVatKjloaDm1gCfW6tp EmeWu6KyaxWM9rmqvbxl1ck= =TCQA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VrqPEDrXMn8OVzN4--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040929124011.GB40412>