From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 23 09:55:46 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68BAD37B401; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gilliam.users.flyingcroc.net (gilliam.users.flyingcroc.net [207.246.128.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B3143F85; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:55:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from joek@mail.flyingcroc.net) Received: from mail.flyingcroc.net (zircon.staff.flyingcroc.net [207.246.150.92])h5NGtjAv033329; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:55:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3EF73111.10209@mail.flyingcroc.net> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:55:45 -0700 From: Joe Kelsey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030515 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG cc: Norikatsu Shigemura cc: "Matthew N. Dodd" Subject: Re: /etc/libmap.conf MFC? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:55:46 -0000 Robert Watson wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Matthew N. Dodd wrote: > > >>On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: >>... >> >>>>"editing of shared libraries" problem I posted about earlier. It also >>>>does not seem like a real big deal to do an MFC for. >>> >>> That's good idea. I want this feature, too. >> >>You should upgrade to 5.1 if it has features that you want. >> >>Adding new features to the STABLE branch this late in its lifetime seems >>pointless. > > > 4.x will likely live on both in development and production for quite a > long time, and will therefore likely see MFC's of much larger things than > libmap.conf support. That said, if you're not willing to > backport/maintain it in 4.x, I agree that it will need to find an owner in > order to make it to 4.x :-). Maybe nork can step up to the plate? The step from ports committer to core committer seems large, but maybe not as large as going from non-committer. OTOH, I can (if necessary) come up with the steps necessary to commit this to -STABLE. I personally do not see why such a minor change should cause such a big deal. Add two files, apply extremely mionr changes to several others, done! /Joe