From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 15 14:47:51 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 0FFAF16A4CE; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 14:47:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net (stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E3E943F93; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 14:47:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from user-2ivfj2j.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.247.204.83] helo=mindspring.com) by stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AL9Bk-0006Ap-00; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 14:46:44 -0800 Message-ID: <3FB6ACA5.B4192F55@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 14:45:57 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: deischen@freebsd.org References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a44ee911fa35d111c3a740034df8c0730a387f7b89c61deb1d350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Andrew Gallatin 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: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 22:47:51 -0000 Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > 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? No, we want a minor version bump to add a new interface, but since we got rid of minor version numbers on libraries, this is no longer possible. 8-). > 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. This is a great idea! -- Terry