Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 3 Dec 2006 08:16:15 +0200
From:      John Hay <jhay@meraka.org.za>
To:        Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
Cc:        current@freebsd.org, Rene Ladan <r.c.ladan@gmail.com>
Subject:   Re: HEADS UP: compat6x
Message-ID:  <20061203061615.GA15517@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0612021037430.9206@sea.ntplx.net>
References:  <456E5DAB.10608@FreeBSD.org> <457160A3.5060209@gmail.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0612021037430.9206@sea.ntplx.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 10:38:54AM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Rene Ladan wrote:
> 
> >Marcus Alves Grando schreef:
> >>Hi list,
> >>
> >>I make compat6x port. If someone need or can help to test, please
> >>download shar here:
> >>
> >>http://marcus.grupos.com.br:8080/patch/compat6x.shar
> >>
> >>Any feedback are welcome.
> >>
> >Would this be a nice opportunity to bump the version of libpthread.so ?
> 
> Se the other thread(s) in current about that.  In short,
> yes we have to bump libpthread.so but it should be done
> along with bumping all libraries.

But even in all those other threads, never had there been a decent
answer why it is good to have two incompatible libraries with the same
number. It can only cause hurt.

I still vote for bumping lib versions as soon as we do something that
cause them to be incompatible with the same versioned one in a release.
Having api churn in a lib version that is only available in -current
is much more acceptable that churning a lib that have the same version
as one in a release.

John
-- 
John Hay -- John.Hay@meraka.csir.co.za / jhay@FreeBSD.org



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061203061615.GA15517>