Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:26:06 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...) Message-ID: <200102130126.f1D1Q6W33680@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "13 Feb 2001 02:11:26 %2B0100." <xzpd7cno08x.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> References: <xzpd7cno08x.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <200102130105.f1D15aU56009@mobile.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <xzpd7cno08x.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: : Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> writes: : > http://people.freebsd.org/~peter/stdio.diff3 : : Except that we bump to 500 instead of 6, and back to 5 before : -RELEASE. I don't think this will work. It is hard to downgrade a major number for libc.so. At least it used to be. : People tracking -CURRENT will end up with a handful of different libc : versions, but they'll avoid the pains we're going through now, and : people upgrading from RELENG_N to RELENG_N+1 will never see a libc : major version increase of more than 1. I don't see why we need only an increment of 1. What does this buy us other than a minor warm fuzzy. OpenBSD bumps libc bunchs of times per release cycle (they are up to libc.so.24 if my sources are current). I've not seen it cause problems there. Warner 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?200102130126.f1D1Q6W33680>