Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 16:43:01 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: No libc shared lib number bump ? Message-ID: <20071109164301.258532a8@deskjail> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0711090952001.16340@sea.ntplx.net> References: <200710180835.18929.thierry@herbelot.com> <47170A83.6050607@FreeBSD.org> <20071018091950.GB1546@nagual.pp.ru> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0710181038360.22190@sea.ntplx.net> <20071109141155.0ae922a1@deskjail> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0711090952001.16340@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> (Fri, 9 Nov 2007 09:54:46 -0500 (EST)): > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > > Quoting Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> (Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:43:46 -0400 (EDT)): > > > >> (*) libc and other symbol versioned libraries may be bumped > >> again in 8.0 to reset the numbering scheme back to 0 (libc.so.0). > >> It was deemed to late in the game to do this for 7.0. > > > > I'm curious, why do we need to reset it back to .0? > > We don't have to. It would just make things clearer to have all > versioned symbol libraries with the same version number since > they shouldn't ever have to be bumped again. Solaris has all > their libraries at .1. We've already used .1, but .0 has never > been used. obrien suggested it, and it seems to make sense > to me. So it's just "cosmetics"... Do we lose much if we don't do this? What we gain in not doing is, is that users of those libs don't have to recompile all ports. Compared to the number of FreeBSD installations in total the number of affected users are small, but those are the users which help us debug -current (and ideally "all" (sort of) src-committers). I think those people have more interesting things to do than to recompile everything. Developers which link to those libs are not affected at all if we keep the current numbers, as they normally don't use it. It may or may not affect autoconf stuff which checks based upon the number instead of a feature/_FreeBSD_version or uname -r. Do you have an idea how much ports may be affected by this? I assume you will coordinate with portmgr to give this change a try on an experimental ports build. While I would be happy to not have to recompile all my ports on the systems (3 machines, 12 jails) where I use -current, this is not an objection, just some food for thoughts. Bye, Alexander. -- http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071109164301.258532a8>