Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:44:25 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@portaone.com> To: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/msun/i387 fenv.c fenv.h Message-ID: <423A86D9.5030504@portaone.com> In-Reply-To: <20050318064521.GA42508@VARK.MIT.EDU> References: <20050318055212.GA70385@FreeBSD.org> <20050318061647.GA40922@VARK.MIT.EDU> <423A7277.1000202@samsco.org> <20050317.233645.74714466.imp@bsdimp.com> <20050318064521.GA42508@VARK.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Schultz wrote: > 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. Haven't several functions been removed from -CURRENT version of libm recently? IMHO this provides sufficient reason for version bump. Actually I think it makes sense to bump all libraries automatically when -CURRENT goes one major number up. There is just no much sense in preserving partial compatibility. -Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?423A86D9.5030504>