From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Jul 26 02:20:07 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id CAA12352
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 1995 02:20:07 -0700
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id CAA12345
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Wed, 26 Jul 1995 02:20:03 -0700
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.9) id CAA09648; Wed, 26 Jul 1995 02:18:04 -0700
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 02:18:04 -0700
Message-Id: <199507260918.CAA09648@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: bde@zeta.org.au
CC: current@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <199507251528.BAA02402@godzilla.zeta.org.au> (message from Bruce Evans on Wed, 26 Jul 1995 01:28:53 +1000)
Subject: Re: does xdr_float addition requires minor number bumping or what?
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: current-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

 * That way we have to worry about newly compiled ports being annoying to
 * use in 2.0.5R and maybe in 2.1.  ld.so will print the confusing message:

Well, "newly compiled ports" are only guaranteed to work with
-current. :)  Also, "annoying" users in this sense is GOOD, if they
are running packages not from packages-2.0.5, they should be warned.

 *     warning: libc.so.2.1: minor version < 2 expected; using it anway
 * 
 * Perhaps ld.so meant to say "minor version < 2 UNexpected".  I'd prefer
 * it to say something like "minor version >= 2 expected; using #1 anyway".

If so, that's a bug in ld.so, and has to be fixed.

 * OTOH if you don't bump the minor every time it is technically required,
 * then newly compiled ports will mysteriously fail in 2.0.5R and maybe in
 * 2.1 if they actually use the new features.
 * 
 * I prefer things to fail unmysteriously :-).

So you agree with me, right, Bruce? :)

Satoshi