From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 11 17:34:36 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69CB316A400 for ; Fri, 11 May 2007 17:34:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2982013C465 for ; Fri, 11 May 2007 17:34:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.ntplx.net (8.14.0/8.14.0/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id l4BHYYSA029404; Fri, 11 May 2007 13:34:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]); Fri, 11 May 2007 13:34:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 13:34:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Alexander Kabaev In-Reply-To: <8e5ef5f70705110951p55e4eb6aqe2ef23b3e77d907a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <20070511083154.0b72ff46@kan.dnsalias.net> <8e5ef5f70705110951p55e4eb6aqe2ef23b3e77d907a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: shared library bump, symbol versioning, libthr change X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:34:36 -0000 On Fri, 11 May 2007, Alexander Kabaev wrote: > On 5/11/07, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> >> At a minimum, all libraries that have been symbol-versioned need >> to be bumped, though. How about if I commit everything except for >> the bumping of non-symbol-versioned libraries? After a later >> discussion, re@ can decide whether or not to bump the remaining >> libraries. Is this acceptable? >> > > Not really. You've wrote it several times before and I kept forgetting to ask > you why do you think libraries getting versioned symbols need to be > bumped. There might be a valid reason for this, but it somehow escapes me > and I would greatly appreciate you helping me to get this straight. I do not > think breaking binaries linking to symbols to which they had no business to > link > in the first place is reason good enough. And testing done by Kris did show > us that the percentage of such binaries extremely small, small enough to be > treated as a noise. I think it was because I thought libraries and applications that are linked without symbol dependencies would always get the latest version of the symbol, not the earliest version of the symbol. But if I recall correctly from prior email from you, you should get the earliest version of the symbol in lieu of no recorded symbol dependency? > > I certainly wouldn't mind you committing everything _but_ version bumping. > > Back to libc.so.7 bump mistake. I an this >< close to actually suggest > that we back libc.so.7 bump out and do things RIGHT for a change. No argument here, go for it. -- DE