I'm inclined to agree with marc here - we bump minors on api additions - and yes, it was stubbed there before so it's not really an "addition" but it was stubbed to fail and had to be worked around - bump the minor - not like it's a big deal.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:11:17AM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 18:49, Philip Guenther wrote: >> >> >> btw, no library version change because the function stubs already >> >> existed. >> > >> > Hmm, since this is actually offering new functionality (by sem_open() >> > and friends no longer always failing), I think it a minor bump would >> > be appropriate. Consider that a program with an autoconf test of >> > sem_open() will now return a different answer, just as if sem_open() >> > was completely new. no? >> >> I hear you, but disagree. We fix program disabling bugs in libraries >> frequently without bumping. I have always thought of library >> versioning being more about "program integrity", as in all the pieces >> you expect to find are all there, but it doesn't say anything about >> the inner workings of the pieces. > > As theo says, there are other library bumps later, but you're wrong. > > Use-case: new packages, slightly older snapshots. New packages actually > make use of sem_open, because of said added functionality. Without a bump, > pkg_add will allow to add them, and they won't work, because the functionality > wasn't there... > > It is added functionality. It's not a minor bugfix. >
