Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:38:05 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <TrimYourCc@NUXI.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...) Message-ID: <20010212173805.P3038@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200102130131.f1D1VrW33790@harmony.village.org>; from imp@harmony.village.org on Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 06:31:53PM -0700 References: <200102130120.f1D1KpU56194@mobile.wemm.org> <200102130131.f1D1VrW33790@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 06:31:53PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <200102130120.f1D1KpU56194@mobile.wemm.org> Peter Wemm writes:
> : If we had taken -current to 500, we could go to 501, 502, etc as
> : required to stop killing our developers, and prior to entering 5.0-BETA we
> : go back to the next sequentially available major number (be it 5, or 6
> : if RELENG_4 bumps again).
>
> I've had problems in the past going backwards on major versions of
> shared libaries. The major problem is that if I have binaries that
> refer to libc.so.503, then when the major number is reverted back to
> 5, it is a nop because ld will use libc.so.503 for new binaries.
In the a.out days, yes. Are you sure you've seen this in the ELF days?
> What's wrong with shipping with say libc.so.505 in 5.0 and then say
> libc.so.645 in 6.0?
HACK.
--
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010212173805.P3038>