Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:35:21 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Sean McNeil <sean@mcneil.com> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MFC of bump in libcom_err.so another mistake? Message-ID: <20060201023521.GA20497@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <ED92AAA4-F610-4DC1-A8C5-FDF646D083AF@mcneil.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0601312122360.4643-100000@sea.ntplx.net> <ED92AAA4-F610-4DC1-A8C5-FDF646D083AF@mcneil.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 06:28:14PM -0800, Sean McNeil wrote: >=20 > On Jan 31, 2006, at 6:25 PM, Daniel Eischen wrote: >=20 > >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. >=20 >=20 > This is EXACTLY what I am saying. I am not a -current user, I am a -=20 > stable user and this happened about a week ago or so. It was =20 > libcom_err.so.2.1 until just recently. The confusion seems to be that you sent your email to the wrong mailing list. Kris --vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFD4B5oWry0BWjoQKURAgHwAJ9XR8U6N760ZSued+9ChJVXsn/UGQCbBUeX U18ET9j+kEicshcYzO1qH78= =K1PB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060201023521.GA20497>