From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 15 20:05:53 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 CA62716A4CE for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 20:05:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp4.server.rpi.edu (smtp4.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D440443FEA for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 20:05:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp4.server.rpi.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAG45qtp015843 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 23:05:52 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031116022031.GA8359@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <3FB6ACA5.B4192F55@mindspring.com> <20031115231603.GA5139@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20031116022031.GA8359@dragon.nuxi.com> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 23:05:51 -0500 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) 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: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:05:53 -0000 At 6:20 PM -0800 11/15/03, David O'Brien wrote: >On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 03:16:03PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >> Provided that we > > 2. replace the date with a convenient sequence number, > > which we can call the minor version number, and >.. > > E.g.: libc.so.6.0, libc.so.6.1, and (first release) libc.so.6.2... > >Please no -- it wouldn't be easy to see a.out libs from ELF ones. >(yes I still have some a.out binaries) Maybe: libc.so.6.e0, libc.so.6.e1, and (first release) libc.so.6.e2... I have no idea what would be best to do, but I do think we (developers and users alike) would be much better off if we had some way to handle all these changes which come in. Or maybe the real problem is that we claim that there will be no API/ABI changes after X.0-RELEASE, and we've really missed that mark with 5.0-RELEASE, for a variety of reasons. If we're going to keep missing that mark with the 6.x-series, then we should plan to do something to make life a little less painful. Right now it's getting more painful, if for no other reason than we have more developers, and thus more major-changes in the pipeline. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu