From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Oct 12 23:41:48 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 9F31E37B401 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 23:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (adsl-64-165-226-88.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [64.165.226.88]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1284143E7B for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 23:41:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 819F466C7B; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 23:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 23:41:45 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: "M. Warner Losh" Cc: kris@obsecurity.org, adam@vectors.cx, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Oh No! __sF undefined -> bump all major number of all libraries Message-ID: <20021013064145.GB7129@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20021013021627.GA76789@vectors.cx> <20021012.201917.43022148.imp@bsdimp.com> <20021013053728.GA6176@xor.obsecurity.org> <20021013.002950.66721950.imp@bsdimp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021013.002950.66721950.imp@bsdimp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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 --61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 12:29:50AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20021013053728.GA6176@xor.obsecurity.org> > Kris Kennaway writes: > : On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 08:19:17PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > :=20 > : > Yes. libc.so changed its ABI to not encode sizeof(FILE) into every > : > binary. __sF was depricated at that time (something like a year or > : > two ago). > : >=20 > : > Maybe it is only a problem for -current, since libc.so.4 is good, and > : > .5 is a use at your own risk sort of thing. So maybe the right answer > : > is 'never mind' and file it under 'the dangers of running -current'. > :=20 > : The real question is whether this will affect people upgrading from > : RELENG_4. If it causes problems for people tracking -current, that's > : too bad (this kind of situation occurs regularly, e.g. when we upgrade > : the C++ compiler). >=20 > I don't think it will impact RELENG_4 -> current, but I've not tried > yet. And upgrading from RELENG_4 seems to be busted right now... OK. It's definitely something that should be checked though. Kris --61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9qRWoWry0BWjoQKURAh6sAJ9dgccuJ9CjdEIssL297Ppx+z/JAACg30Fb wrM4hwXhnxC0LsXr0ZCCDvk= =mhrl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message