Daniel Eischen writes:
 > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
 > > 
 > > Kirk McKusick writes:
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > And mail/postfix and devel/gnomevfs2 (ones's i've found so far)
 > > 
 > > <...>
 > > 
 > >  > This is why we make this change now so that it will be in place
 > >  > for the masses when 5.2 is released :-)
 > > 
 > > Can't we bump the libc version so that dynamically linked, non-system
 > > binaries can continue to work?   Having things like postfix and gnome
 > > dumping core seems excessivly bumpy.  Upgrading all ports is a pain.
 > I don't think that's a good idea.  I've also got changes in
 > mind that require a libc version bump, but they aren't ready
 > now.  I was saving them for 6.0.  Other folks may also have
 > similar changes in mind.  Do we really want to have yet another
 > version bump?

It costs ~1MB in disk space for each libc bump, yes that's expensive.
But so is having many random,  non-system applications bomb after you
upgrade.   Shooting all early adopters in the head is really bad for
PR.  I think that 1MB of disk space is worth it.

 > For 6.0, can we start off libc at libc.so.YYYYMMDD and move it

Yes! Yes!

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to