Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:10:04 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: libc shlib version Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1001115230410.7945A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <vqc1ywcsttb.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote: > * What I haven't understood at any point is just what the hell changed > * and why Roger Hardiman's packages broke. Anybody care to clear this > * up? I'm starting to wonder if we've simply been chasing a red herring > * the whole time and the problem has nothing to do with this since > * nobody involved can state anything definitive as to WHY this has to > * happen or even what was changed. > > Roger's packages is a different issue, that one was in libc_r. > According to him, it was caused by the pthread merge that occurred too > late for him to fix his ports before the (initial) ports freeze. > > Hmm. Now that I think about it, since this one is a pure > backward-incompatible library interface change, do we need to bump > libc_r's version number? IMO, no. The change to libc_r was to fix a deficiency/bug. I can tell you the exact problem if you're interested. -- Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.1001115230410.7945A-100000>