From owner-freebsd-current Mon Mar 27 13:43:19 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id NAA10218 for current-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 13:43:19 -0800 Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA10186; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 13:43:02 -0800 Received: (from phk@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id NAA29986; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 13:43:01 -0800 From: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-Id: <199503272143.NAA29986@ref.tfs.com> Subject: Re: shared library versioning To: jkh@freefall.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 13:43:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu, paul@isl.cf.ac.uk, bde@zeta.org.au, davidg@Root.COM, current@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <9650.796340262@freefall.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Mar 27, 95 01:37:42 pm Content-Type: text Content-Length: 668 Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > I didn't see a bump, but as a result of this change, it should be. > > So instead of said binaries failing catastrophically on a link > error, they just fail to find the library in question and fail > catastrophically on a missing library? > > I somehow fail to see the point. So do I. This will make >ALL< 2.1 binaries fail on a 2.0 system, leaving the version number as it was would only have a few 2.1 binaries (as of yet nonexistent ones) fail on a 2.0 system. revert please. -- Poul-Henning Kamp -- TRW Financial Systems, Inc. 'All relevant people are pertinent' && 'All rude people are impertinent' => 'no rude people are relevant'