Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 22:02:43 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net>, Andrew Thompson <thompsa@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Where is thr_getscheduler Message-ID: <20060804050242.GC58082@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <20060802172505.GA1935@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <20060801204501.GA19647@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0608011657040.1810@sea.ntplx.net> <20060801211657.GA29737@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20060801212742.GB13841@heff.fud.org.nz> <20060801213803.GB9583@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20060802144255.GU69505@over-yonder.net> <20060802165604.GA970@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0608021303120.7796@sea.ntplx.net> <20060802172505.GA1935@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steve Kargl wrote this message on Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 10:25 -0700:
> Almost everything on a FreeBSD system depends on libc. Bumping
> its version number without careful coordination of bumping all
> other version numbers is full of landmines. Falling back of the
> retort "this is -current expect problesm" just glosses over what
> appears to be sloppy planning.
Ummm.. don't we have have symbol versioning? isn't this exactly
what symbol versioning is for? I haven't been following this
particular discussion, but I thought now that we have symbol versioning
in the tree that we never have to bump the numbers? or is this failure
to have a proper document to tell someone what to do when they change
the API and provide the correct hooks for the new versions?
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060804050242.GC58082>