From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 14 14:13:37 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 D072616A4CE; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:13:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFD2C43FE1; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:13:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30]) by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAEMDZ1O023230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:13:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.9.1) id hAEMDUl96781; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:13:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) From: Andrew Gallatin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16309.21386.164910.449768@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:13:30 -0500 (EST) To: deischen@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: References: <16309.19433.564671.856750@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid 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 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 22:13:37 -0000 Daniel Eischen writes: > 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? It costs ~1MB in disk space for each libc bump, yes that's expensive. But so is having many random, non-system applications bomb after you upgrade. Shooting all early adopters in the head is really bad for PR. I think that 1MB of disk space is worth it. > For 6.0, can we start off libc at libc.so.YYYYMMDD and move it Yes! Yes! Drew