Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 00:27:48 -0700 From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: davidg@Root.COM Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ical 1.9 Message-ID: <199508260727.AAA03148@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <199508260715.AAA15830@corbin.Root.COM> (message from David Greenman on Sat, 26 Aug 1995 00:15:27 -0700)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* I thought briefly about the xdr changes. I skipped over them out
* of concern for it affecting our exsting ports. Do we really need to
* bump the library revision? We haven't officially released
* libc.so.2.1 yet, so I don't see the need. Everything built with a
^^^
2.2, right? libc.so.2.1 went out with 2.0.5R....
* "libc.so.2.1" should be forward compatible.
I'm not sure what your concern here is. It doesn't matter either way
for us (the ports team). We will rebuild the whole ports tree on a
2.1-ALPHA (or something close to it) machine before the release
anyway. All I know is that we can't ship packages using libc.so.2.1
if the bindist has libc.so.2.2, or the other way around.
Whatever you decide to do, that's fine for us, as long as we are
consistent with our own version number policies. My only request is
that if you are going to make this change, please do it soon, that
will make it easier for us (and harder to screw up).
Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508260727.AAA03148>