On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:41 -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday 26 October 2007 10:53:47 am David O'Brien wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 05:31:03PM -0400, Ken Smith wrote: > > > What we need to try and avoid unless *absolutely* *necessary* is the > > > part Scott quoted above - binaries compiled on 6.3-REL should work on > > > 6.2-REL unless there was a really big issue and the solution to that > > > issue required us to break that. The reason is simple, people should be > > > able to continue running 6.2-REL "for a while" and still be able to > > > update their packages from packages-6-stable even after portmgr@ starts > > > using a 6.3-REL base for the builds > > > > This is news to me. > > I've never heard that we're that concerned with forward compatability > > even on a RELENG branch. We do not break the ABI for backwards > > compatability - in that everything (including kernel modules) that ran on > > 6.2 must run on 6.3. > > Agreed. The solution to the shared /usr/local problem is to use the oldest > version for /usr/local. That has always been the case. Forwards > compatiblity (what you are asking for) is significantly harder to guarantee > since accurately predicting the future isn't much a science. >
Yeah, sorry. I guess I've been a bit grumpy the past couple days and
over-stated the "*absolutely* *necessary*" part above. It should have
read "*necessary*", not "*absolutely* *necessary*".
I'd just like us to question if it's necessary here. Is there a good
enough way to do this without causing the breakage? I sorta liked
Warren's question. Does this stuff need to be inlined and if not would
that solution avoid the breakage?
Accurately predicting the future is impossible (IHMO, I guess others
disagree). Breaking forwards compatibility if necessary will happen.
Doing it when there is an alternative that's viable and wouldn't break
it is what should be avoided.
--
Ken Smith
- From there to here, from here to | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
there, funny things are everywhere. |
- Theodore Geisel |
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
