Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 18:57:09 +0200 From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@freebsd.org> 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: <86k6lfbafu.fsf@xps.des.no> In-Reply-To: <ygesm03ie9a.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> 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> <ygesm03ie9a.wl%ume@mahoroba.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@freebsd.org> writes: > Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no> writes: > > You can't just bump libpam; you need to bump all the modules along > > with it, because libpam will only load modules with the same major > > number as itself. In fact, there is only a single SHLIB_MAJOR for the > > 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. As PAM maintainer, I strongly object. > > Is it really necessary to remove the padding? It gives us a lot of > > trouble for zero gain. > I think such cleanup should be done before major release. What do we gain from removing the padding? Is there even a single practical benefit to doing so? DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86k6lfbafu.fsf>