From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 18 06:45:29 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B66616A4CE; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:45:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (VARK.MIT.EDU [18.95.3.179]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0E2643D41; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:45:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.13.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2I6jMjh042537; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:45:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: (from das@localhost) by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j2I6jLl7042536; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:45:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:45:21 -0500 From: David Schultz To: Warner Losh Message-ID: <20050318064521.GA42508@VARK.MIT.EDU> Mail-Followup-To: Warner Losh , scottl@samsco.org, danfe@FreeBSD.ORG, src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20050318055212.GA70385@FreeBSD.org> <20050318061647.GA40922@VARK.MIT.EDU> <423A7277.1000202@samsco.org> <20050317.233645.74714466.imp@bsdimp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050317.233645.74714466.imp@bsdimp.com> cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG cc: scottl@samsco.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG cc: danfe@FreeBSD.ORG cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/msun/i387 fenv.c fenv.h X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:45:29 -0000 On Thu, Mar 17, 2005, Warner Losh wrote: > > You had better bump the version number for libm before 6.0 rolls > > around!! I've just found a 3rd party binary-only package that > > supports 'FreeBSD 5.x' but is linked against libm.so.2. Ugh. We > > need to bury that mistake and NOT make it again. > > 6.0 already has /lib/libm.so.3 So does 5.3. I think Scott's point is that if we're going to bump it for 6.X at all, we had better do it soon or risk running into the same mess we had before. I agree with that, although at present I don't know of a compelling reason to do the bump the libm version number at all.