From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 14 14:00:25 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61AD16A4CE for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:00:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31D443FB1 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:00:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id hAEM0I1G010288; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:00:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:00:18 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com To: Andrew Gallatin In-Reply-To: <16309.19433.564671.856750@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Kirk McKusick Subject: Re: HEADS-UP new statfs structure X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: deischen@freebsd.org List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:00:25 -0000 On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Kirk McKusick writes: > > > > > > And mail/postfix and devel/gnomevfs2 (ones's i've found so far) > > <...> > > > This is why we make this change now so that it will be in place > > for the masses when 5.2 is released :-) > > Can't we bump the libc version so that dynamically linked, non-system > binaries can continue to work? Having things like postfix and gnome > dumping core seems excessivly bumpy. Upgrading all ports is a pain. I don't think that's a good idea. I've also got changes in mind that require a libc version bump, but they aren't ready now. I was saving them for 6.0. Other folks may also have similar changes in mind. Do we really want to have yet another version bump? For 6.0, can we start off libc at libc.so.YYYYMMDD and move it back to libc.so.6 for the first release? That way we can bump it whenever we want to avoid the "bumpy" rides for -current folk. -- Dan Eischen