From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 15 22:20:39 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 73A8A16A4CE for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 22:20:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09B7243FCB for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 22:20:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAG6KVeG021755; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 23:20:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 23:20:04 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20031115.232004.98730142.imp@bsdimp.com> To: drosih@rpi.edu From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: References: <20031115231603.GA5139@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20031116022031.GA8359@dragon.nuxi.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org 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 06:20:39 -0000 In message: Garance A Drosihn writes: : 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. Actually, 5.x is an anomaly. We'd planned on freezing the 5.0 ABI at 5.0, but we missed that mark and are waiting for 5.3 to freeze the ABI, treaing 5.0, 5.1 and 5.2 as if they were pre-releases. For 6.0 we'll be back to having libc.so.6. Warner