From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 3 12:16:32 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D8916A4FC for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2006 12:16:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from astrodog@gmail.com) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.175]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 337CC43CC2 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2006 12:12:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from astrodog@gmail.com) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id o2so2464843uge for ; Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:12:34 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=g/5iu/NWU1sWf4vl1v+MewBDAvBzZKRyu7aAOulJhOvSnDRmexVVT8xk8tFlFXpT9zAFc2yYsvY8D7jGvPLPbW8ihXz30tFhzbCryvxZpqSruYXSSbJ5DipwV2Y7fYGcArjp/cQurQQKD0Ub1+qSln8OaQo3H54P3MyjvmzwQ2g= Received: by 10.78.136.9 with SMTP id j9mr6674298hud.1165147953932; Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:12:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.31.5 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Dec 2006 04:12:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <2fd864e0612030412s290de4cqa9db5feac41b379b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 06:12:33 -0600 From: Astrodog To: "John Hay" In-Reply-To: <20061203090310.GA23213@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <456E5DAB.10608@FreeBSD.org> <457160A3.5060209@gmail.com> <20061203061615.GA15517@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <4572834B.80500@FreeBSD.org> <20061203090310.GA23213@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: compat6x X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 03 Dec 2006 12:16:32 -0000 On 12/3/06, John Hay wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:56:59PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > > John Hay wrote: > > > But even in all those other threads, never had there been a decent > > > answer why it is good to have two incompatible libraries with the same > > > number. It can only cause hurt. > > > > No one has said that it won't be changed, only that it won't be > > changed right this minute. It's ok if you don't understand all the > > technical points that were made in the previous threads (I don't > > understand them all either). But what you should realize is that this > > is -current, and sometimes stuff breaks. If you can't deal with that, > > run RELENG_6. Sorry to be so direct about it, but seriously ... > > Yes I can run something else than -current... I should also be able > to lobby for something if it looks like it can be better? > > I understand that there is churn (especially in the libs) in -current. > I don't have anything against it. > > I know the lib version numbers will be bumped. I'm happy with it. > > I'm just trying to reason that it should first be the version number > bump and then the lib churn. > > For the guy that have all the source and regularly recompile everything, > there is no change and he can still do that. What it does buy us, is that > RELENG_6 apps stay working and if people have apps that they do not have > the source for, they can still use it. > > It doesn't seem so unreasonable to just swap the order of things that > have to be done in any case? Or is unreasonable? > > John > The problem with this idea, among other things, is that at times, during the development of -CURRENT, you'd be bumping libs every few hours. Since its impossible to garuntee that a lib will remain compatible, under all circumstances, its only handled as a best effort thing.