Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:08:23 +0300 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, alfred@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, deischen@freebsd.org, yar@comp.chem.msu.su, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h Message-ID: <20070827150823.GO2332@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <20070827162655.3e3x0cse8w44o4o4@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <20070824215515.GF16131@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0708241819220.13181@sea.ntplx.net> <20070824.172212.74696955.imp@bsdimp.com> <200708270850.20904.jhb@freebsd.org> <20070827135625.GF29854@garage.freebsd.pl> <20070827162655.3e3x0cse8w44o4o4@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--ShzQXCswyqjgWi6k Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:26:55PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> (from Mon, 27 Aug 2007 =20 > 15:56:25 +0200): >=20 > >On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 08:50:19AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: >=20 > >Folks running -current are also committers that use -current to test as > >much as they can, but also to use it for day-to-day work. Isn't it why > >we have perforce and other policies, so that -current can be stable and > >usable? If we have tools that can help -current users to use the system > >smoothly, I'm all for using them. I can't imagine taking yet another two > >days and reinstalling all ports, just because -current users are not >=20 > Only 2 days? Lucky you, I'm just through a complete recompile of every = =20 > port after the gcc 4.2.1 import (unluckily 4.2.1 doesn't fix all known = =20 > bugs) just to be on the safe side, and a complete recompile after the =20 > gcc 4.2.0 import... and it takes nearly a week on my machine. >=20 > >important. Of course -current users know how to deal with things like > >this, but that doesn't mean they have to if there is another way. > >The more surprises like that one, the less -current users we will have, > >which means the less testing. > >If there will be a need for me to reinstall all the ports I'll choose > >not to upgrade or downgrade to 6.x... >=20 > So the really important thing for you is: How many ports are affected =20 > by this change? >=20 > Does anyone have an estimate for this? >=20 > If not, does someone has an exhaustive list of affected symbols? I can = =20 > write a short script which has a look into each installed port to =20 > determine if it is affected or not (based upon the assumption that you = =20 > don't mind if we overlook a few things... I'm not sure if statically =20 > linked binaries contain enough information). Statically linked binaries should be not affected. I think that the symbols has names starting with fts_, see fts(3). The proposed script would be very handy, I muttered myself about writing such thing, depending on the outcome on the discussion. Anyway, I mostly keep the RELENG_6-built ports in the chroot and use them, instead of HEAD-built. --ShzQXCswyqjgWi6k Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFG0ujlC3+MBN1Mb4gRAqSTAJ4tkamky5F6g79aPDu8F0EphGtsxwCg7P0T 5xFr++qI7VUC+L0JedqIepI= =VgOi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ShzQXCswyqjgWi6k--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070827150823.GO2332>