From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 19 20:42:09 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C741C16A4DE for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:42:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3F043D53 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:42:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [10.10.3.185] ([165.236.175.187]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k6JKfw3P011160; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:42:03 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <44BE9902.3050900@samsco.org> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:41:38 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060206 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guy Helmer References: <44BE8912.9010807@palisadesys.com> In-Reply-To: <44BE8912.9010807@palisadesys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=failed version=3.1.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Can't run newly-compiled RELENG_6 programs under RELENG_6_1: missing __res_state X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:42:09 -0000 Guy Helmer wrote: > We just tried running programs under RELENG_6_1 that were compiled under > RELENG_6 checked out 2006-07-19, and couldn't because of the undefined > symbol "__res_state"l, which I would assume is a result of the recent > MFC of the BIND 9 resolver library. Is this to be expected? It will > cause a bit of a hassle... > > Guy > No, it shouldn't be that way. I heavily advocated that the STABLE branches should be free from exactly these kinds of problems. Hopefully this gets resolved. Scott