From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Feb 13 8:56:14 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B6B837B6A4 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:56:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from billy-club.village.org (billy-club.village.org [10.0.0.3]) by rover.village.org (8.11.2/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1DGu3h23675; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:56:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@billy-club.village.org) Received: from billy-club.village.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by billy-club.village.org (8.11.1/8.8.3) with ESMTP id f1DGrqE12816; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:53:53 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200102131653.f1DGrqE12816@billy-club.village.org> To: Doug Rabson Subject: Re: Proposal on shared libs version values. Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , Peter Wemm , Jordan Hubbard , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:00:10 GMT." References: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:53:52 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message Doug Rabson writes: : So did the installworld work or not? I'm confused now... : : If it worked, then I think Peter's stdio patch should be committed. It did and it should. However, there's the issue of 6 vs 500. Hell, peter said it could be "anything". Can it be "5.1"? I know this isn't a "minor" number in the a.out sense, but that would give us room to grow. Of course, I still say there's no reason we can't bump it by more than one each major release cycle. That's, sadly, how ELF libraries work. Keeping the same major for the release is a hold over from the a.out days and is inappropriate for ELF. The X folks learned this in the X11R4 time frame when they stopped trying to make libX11.so.R match the number after the R, except on new platforms. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message