Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:05:36 -0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, John Indra <john@office.naver.co.id>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...) Message-ID: <200102130105.f1D15aU56009@mobile.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <200102130046.f1D0klW33264@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Warner Losh wrote: > In message <xzppugno1jr.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: > : Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> writes: > : > Attached is a patch that attempts to work around recent stdio > : > breakage in -current. I've verified it compiles, but won't be > : > able to test it until at least tomorrow. If someone wants to > : > review it and verify it works, I'll commit it. > : > : Please. Let's not, and say we did. > > I'd rather see this patch, or something similar, than bump the major > version again. We can phase in a better way to obviate the need to do > this in the future. Personally, I think we place far too much weight on the major number thing. I think we should be allowed to bump it when the alternative is 'major pain' to developers. I also object to hacking around like this. I would far prefer that we fix it properly. We *need* to be able to innovate, especially with locking in libc in 5.x. I suspect we will have major events like this several more times before 5.0-R when we add in hooks for KSE or rfork threading. http://people.freebsd.org/~peter/stdio.diff3 Lets commit that and get on with life. Existing binaries will just keep on running. And if we dont ship libc.so.5, in 5.0-R, then *so what*? Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102130105.f1D15aU56009>