From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 1 02:28:16 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0374016A420; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 02:28:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sean@mcneil.com) Received: from mail.mcneil.com (mcneil.com [24.199.45.54]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5D1043D45; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 02:28:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sean@mcneil.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.mcneil.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.mcneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5817EF25C1; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:28:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.mcneil.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (triton.mcneil.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 63045-03; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:28:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.0.10] (mobile.mcneil.com [10.1.0.10]) by mail.mcneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D61E6F255A; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:28:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Sean McNeil Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:28:14 -0800 To: Daniel Eischen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mcneil.com X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:32:00 +0000 Cc: Robert Watson , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MFC of bump in libcom_err.so another mistake? 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: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:28:16 -0000 On Jan 31, 2006, at 6:25 PM, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Sean McNeil wrote: >> >> The point I am making is that this is in the -STABLE tree, not the - >> CURRENT tree. There is no bump of libc and I don't see any reason >> for the libcom_err.so revision bump in -STABLE. IMHO, it didn't make >> sense. > > I don't think it was -stable at the time. It was probably > 6.0-current and the version bump occurred just before the > release. As a -current user, you are expected to be able > to deal with this and rebuild all your ports if necessary. This is EXACTLY what I am saying. I am not a -current user, I am a - stable user and this happened about a week ago or so. It was libcom_err.so.2.1 until just recently.