Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes:
> : Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : > http://people.freebsd.org/~peter/stdio.diff3
> : 
> : Except that we bump to 500 instead of 6, and back to 5 before
> I don't think this will work.  It is hard to downgrade a major number
> for libc.so.  At least it used to be.

FYI; this is no longer the case.  The numbers in the names mean nothing
to ld or ldconfig.  The library name is "libc.so.5" as a string with no
significance to the naming at all.  The versioning is done at link time
by the libfoo.so -> libfoo.so.N symlink.

> : People tracking -CURRENT will end up with a handful of different libc
> : versions, but they'll avoid the pains we're going through now, and
> : people upgrading from RELENG_N to RELENG_N+1 will never see a libc
> : major version increase of more than 1.
> I don't see why we need only an increment of 1.  What does this buy us
> other than a minor warm fuzzy.  OpenBSD bumps libc bunchs of times per
> release cycle (they are up to libc.so.24 if my sources are current).
> I've not seen it cause problems there.

My thoughts exactly.  Only do so when it is something big that is going to
cause major pain.  Minor pain we can live with and is part of -current
life. But potential system killers like this sort of thing (my cleanup, not
Dan's one) are worth it as long as they are not overdone.

> Warner

"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to