From owner-freebsd-current Mon Mar 27 11:48:43 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id LAA02467 for current-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 11:48:43 -0800 Received: from trout.sri.MT.net (trout.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.12]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA02459 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 11:48:35 -0800 Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.sri.MT.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) id JAA02055; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 09:17:08 -0700 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 09:17:08 -0700 Message-Id: <199503271617.JAA02055@trout.sri.MT.net> To: Paul Richards Cc: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans), davidg@Root.COM, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: shared library versioning In-Reply-To: <199503271335.OAA10199@isl.cf.ac.uk> References: <199503271324.XAA19834@godzilla.zeta.org.au> <199503271335.OAA10199@isl.cf.ac.uk> Reply-To: nate@sneezy.sri.com (Nate Williams) From: nate@sneezy.sri.com (Nate Williams) Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > >> .. > > >> unless you have some other reason to bump the libc major number. > > >> > > > > >Jordan's just added new hash code..... > > > > There is no problem for new interfaces, except possibly from namespace > > pollution. > > How do we deal witht the problem of binaries that use the new interface > being run on older systems with the old library? Are we bumping the minor > number, does the linker do anything about this? We *should* be bumping the minor number. If no-one gets to it (freefall appears to be down now), I'll try and get to it. Nate