From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 12 12:38:29 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 7D56D16A400; Sat, 12 May 2007 12:38:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B8B13C448; Sat, 12 May 2007 12:38:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D694B46E4B; Sat, 12 May 2007 08:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 13:38:28 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Daniel Eischen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070512133732.M24765@fledge.watson.org> 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 List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 12:38:29 -0000 On Fri, 11 May 2007, Daniel Eischen wrote: > 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. Regardless of the specifics of the library bump, I think we need to get the threading library default changed ASAP. We need to get more widespread testing of libthr so we can shake out the problems before the release, as changing the threading library is a big deal... Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge