Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:53:15 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <mckay@thehub.com.au> To: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> Cc: Stephen McKay <mckay@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The whole libc thing. Message-ID: <200102221153.f1MBrFm23661@dungeon.home> In-Reply-To: <200102220525.f1M5P9W02890@harmony.village.org> from Warner Losh at "Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:25:09 -0700" References: <200102201103.f1KB3VC19818@dungeon.home> <200102191217.f1JCHno13825@dungeon.home> <20010216161948.B70642@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> <200102160225.f1G2PFw09227@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> <200102160317.f1G3HqE26659@billy-club.village.org> <200102170638.f1H6ckW84622@harmony.village.org> <200102191734.f1JHYQW61198@harmony.village.org> <200102220525.f1M5P9W02890@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, 21st February 2001, Warner Losh wrote: >In message <200102201103.f1KB3VC19818@dungeon.home> Stephen McKay writes: >: Oh, and earlier I forgot to highlight your comment: "This is easy to fix. >: Just rebuild the port that produced libfred.so.3." This implies that >: recompiling a lot of stuff is central to your plans. I claim that we >: can make this recompiling explicit and safe to all past and future >: binaries by equating this recompile with a major version bump. Everywhere. > >This may be true. I'm concerned that we will make the situation worse by hackery. If people go around recompiling libraries (especially ports), then when the cutover comes we will have some libFOO.so.N with the hacks, and some without. That could be a lot harder to support than having them all without any hacks. On the other hand, I'm not sure the current hacks cause any problem. Some of the proposed hacks would have, though. We'll see what happens. >The other reason that I worried about bumping all the major numbers in >all the ports is the effect on the current/stable split. We'd need >different versions for stable and current on all the ports, and all >the depends and such. i don't see a good way of doing that. We >encode major numbers all over the place in /usr/ports/*/*/Makefile, >but for the major that we generate, as well as the LIBDEPENDS. It >would be a nightmare to support two versions in all of them. That does look nasty. It seems that whatever huge change appears in -current will have to be quickly replicated in -stable. That's not good either. If I think of a good solution to this, I'll get back to you. >I fear that we'll end up with the least evil of many evil choices. There are a great many evil possibilities here. I'm not yet confident that we will select the least evil. Some evil has been incorporated already. I think, even now, given total veto power, :-) that I would back out the stdio locking changes entirely, until we knew how to proceed without danger. Stephen. PS I think it's safe again to mail to my ISP account, though I haven't been able to find out why your earlier mail spent a month on their server. Maybe mail to both of my addresses? :-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102221153.f1MBrFm23661>