Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:52:49 +0900 From: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@freebsd.org> To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Cc: nectar@freebsd.org, standards@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFR] correct type of addrinfo.ai_addrlen and netent.n_net Message-ID: <ygesm03ie9a.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> In-Reply-To: <86fyw32yqm.fsf@xps.des.no> References: <ygezmub1t1c.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <20050531.075329.118637972.imp@bsdimp.com> <ygevf4zihhz.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <20050531.084832.20036038.imp@bsdimp.com> <ygeu0kjigeg.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <86fyw32yqm.fsf@xps.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
>>>>> On Tue, 31 May 2005 17:37:05 +0200
>>>>> Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no> said:
des> You can't just bump libpam; you need to bump all the modules along
des> with it, because libpam will only load modules with the same major
des> number as itself. In fact, there is only a single SHLIB_MAJOR for the
des> entire src/lib/libpam tree, in src/lib/libpam/Makefile.inc.
Thank you for clarification. My patch bumps SHLIB_MAJOR in
lib/libpam/Makefile.inc.
des> Is it really necessary to remove the padding? It gives us a lot of
des> trouble for zero gain.
I think such cleanup should be done before major release. However, if
our consensus doesn't want to remove the padding, I'll stop removing
it.
Sincerely,
--
Hajimu UMEMOTO @ Internet Mutual Aid Society Yokohama, Japan
ume@mahoroba.org ume@{,jp.}FreeBSD.org
http://www.imasy.org/~ume/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ygesm03ie9a.wl%ume>