Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 11:53:38 -0600 (MDT) From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: des@des.no Cc: nectar@freebsd.org, standards@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFR] correct type of addrinfo.ai_addrlen and netent.n_net Message-ID: <20050531.115338.74685129.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <86k6lfbafu.fsf@xps.des.no> References: <86fyw32yqm.fsf@xps.des.no> <ygesm03ie9a.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <86k6lfbafu.fsf@xps.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@freebsd.org> writes: > > Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no> writes: > > > You can't just bump libpam; you need to bump all the modules alon= g > > > with it, because libpam will only load modules with the same majo= r > > > number as itself. In fact, there is only a single SHLIB_MAJOR fo= r the > > > entire src/lib/libpam tree, in src/lib/libpam/Makefile.inc. > > Thank you for clarification. My patch bumps SHLIB_MAJOR in > > lib/libpam/Makefile.inc. > = > As PAM maintainer, I strongly object. Keep in mind that systemic changes can trump a maintainer's objection. This is a systemic change, so your single objection is not necessarily enough to not do this. However, the issues you raise may be reason enough to revert the systemic change. > > > Is it really necessary to remove the padding? It gives us a lot = of > > > trouble for zero gain. > > I think such cleanup should be done before major release. > = > What do we gain from removing the padding? Is there even a single > practical benefit to doing so? It is for posix compatibility. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-standards/2005-May/000869.ht= ml is where to start for an explaination. The question becomes one of do we care enough about 5.x compatibility with our new architectures to preserve it. The RE has indecated that he'd really like to see us do that (ABI stability). Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050531.115338.74685129.imp>