Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:22:15 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Kenneth Culver <culverk@yumyumyum.org> Cc: Jonathon McKitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Porting libc_r from -current to -stable Message-ID: <3D6E7467.2E0C454C@mindspring.com> References: <20020829110354.R22530-100000@alpha.yumyumyum.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kenneth Culver wrote: > > I've volunteered to do this port, with the expectation that it's within my > > ability. I'm just a bit over my head, but that's how I'll learn, right? [ ... ] > Just curious, but what does doing this port get you? In theory, it should mean that threaded code compiled for -stable will then run on -current without modification, when someone decides that -current is stable enough for the changeover. If the implementation of flockfile/ftrylockfile/funlockfile is via a library exported symbol, then programs that are linked shared should "just work", but it will take a lot of hackery to implement these function in -stable without introducing a -stable/-stable binary compatability problem, which is normally deferred until later releases (there would be a libc version number bump required, which isn't possible, because minor version numbers aren't supported, and there's already a lot of -current boxes out there). Probably, it's better to fix code that expects the functions that are "missing" and can't be implemented compatably to not attempt to use them (see other posts in this thread for details and a URL for the SGI man page for the functions in question). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D6E7467.2E0C454C>