From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 7 00:29:50 2004 Return-Path: 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 98C3316A4CE; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 00:29:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from VARK.homeunix.com (adsl-68-122-2-18.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.2.18]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE8843D1D; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 00:29:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from VARK.homeunix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by VARK.homeunix.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i178TmKW001916; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 00:29:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: (from das@localhost) by VARK.homeunix.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i178Tm1K001915; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 00:29:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 00:29:48 -0800 From: David Schultz To: Scott Long Message-ID: <20040207082948.GA1850@VARK.homeunix.com> Mail-Followup-To: Scott Long , "M. Warner Losh" , nectar@FreeBSD.ORG, deischen@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20040205072422.GB11291@VARK.homeunix.com> <4023C100.2090305@freebsd.org> <20040207005520.GA7132@VARK.homeunix.com> <20040207.000718.29363133.imp@bsdimp.com> <20040207072710.GA1369@VARK.homeunix.com> <40249B01.7000102@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40249B01.7000102@freebsd.org> cc: nectar@FreeBSD.ORG cc: deischen@FreeBSD.ORG cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADS UP: libkse -> libpthread switch X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 08:29:50 -0000 On Sat, Feb 07, 2004, Scott Long wrote: > David Schultz wrote: > >Yeah, I understand how it can happen, and I've even seen it on a > >Solaris box.[1] But Scott's message seems to imply that partially > >statically linked binaries work right now, and that we need to > >keep it that way moving into the next release, even at the expense > >of potentially breaking fully dynamic binaries. Perhaps he meant > >something else. > > > > No, not at all. My point was that people are going to run into these > hideous edge cases (netscape/mozilla plugins come to mind here), and > our official stance should be to recompile the app. The important thing > with going into 5.3 is that these kinds of problems need to be very easy > to diagnose by the user, and relatively easy to fix. I don't want > something that will obfuscate the problem or create a false sense of > security. The last thing we need is for the mailing lists to get > flooded with people complaining that 5.3 isn't stable merely because > of mis-behaving libraries. I see. So rather than having it ``just work'' 95% of the time and fail in some bizarre way the other 5% of the time, the plan is to declare a flag day and force everyone to bring their binaries to a consistent state. Though I don't entirely agree with that stance, I can't dispute it given that I don't have to deal with the volume of mail re@ must get over problems like this. Thanks for the clarification.