From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 5 22:31:35 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-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 8957216A403; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 22:31:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (66-23-211-162.clients.speedfactory.net [66.23.211.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64DEC43C9D; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 22:30:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kB5MVP9W053202; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:31:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Daniel Eischen Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 16:29:21 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <456E5DAB.10608@FreeBSD.org> <4572834B.80500@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200612051629.23067.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:31:33 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.3/2285/Tue Dec 5 08:58:47 2006 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: John Hay , Doug Barton , current@freebsd.org, Rene Ladan 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: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:31:35 -0000 On Sunday 03 December 2006 09:58, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, 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 ... > > And we're going to enable symbol versioning which also > requires all libraries to have their version bumped > regardless. Once we have symbol versioning, we will > not have to bump library versions again (at least > in the libraries that are symbol versioned - libc, > libm, libthr, libptthread). Yes, but it doesn't hurt to just bump things now. I actually agree with John's argument that it is beneficial to allow folks on current to safely use -stable apps by doing the library bump at first breakage. Granted, after 7.0 that policy will be obsolete, but it is still relevant for 7-current. :) Heck, why not just enable symbol versioning in current by default now anyways? -- John Baldwin