From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Oct 12 18:44: 4 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B285437B401 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 18:44:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hammer.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 096D543EAA for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 18:44:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@hammer.village.org) Received: from hammer.village.org (imp@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hammer.village.org (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g9D1hk9H008001 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 19:43:46 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@hammer.village.org) Received: (from imp@localhost) by hammer.village.org (8.12.6/8.12.5/Submit) id g9D1hk8S008000 for ports@freebsd.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 19:43:46 -0600 (MDT) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 19:43:46 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" Message-Id: <200210130143.g9D1hk8S008000@hammer.village.org> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Oh No! __sF undefined -> bump all major number of all libraries Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org We need to bump every major number of every library in the ports system. Otherwise, when people upgrade, they won't be forced to upgrade things ports depend upon. We should have done this months ago when -current depricated it over a year ago. But I suspect the issue isn't as simple as black and white, so I'm guessing there's a good reason for why this wasn't done... Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message