Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:23:24 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposal on shared libs version values. Message-ID: <200102142123.f1ELNOW91541@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "14 Feb 2001 12:45:30 %2B0100." <xzphf1xtrmt.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> References: <xzphf1xtrmt.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <200102140444.f1E4iLU70786@mobile.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <xzphf1xtrmt.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes:
: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> writes:
: > As Doug Rabson so elegantly put it: The last thing we need is for people
: > to waste valuable development time working around version number problems.
:
: Right, so why are we getting bogged down in this bikeshed? I want the
: next libc version to be numbered 5.pink, btw. Somebody please just
: take the patch (~des/software/stdio-20010213.diff), replace 501 with
: their favorite numbering scheme, and commit it.
The committed changes have problems.
See my note in -current for details. Basically, we have to bump *ALL*
shared libriares in -current that use std{err,out,in}. The version
number has nothing to do with this :-)
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102142123.f1ELNOW91541>