From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Mar 29 22:38:29 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id WAA17642
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 22:38:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.think.com (Mail1.Think.COM [131.239.33.245])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA17636
          for <hackers@freefall.freebsd.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 22:38:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Early-Bird-1.Think.COM by mail.think.com; Sat, 30 Mar 96 01:38:20 -0500
Received: from compound ([206.10.99.151]) by Early-Bird.Think.COM; Sat, 30 Mar 96 01:38:17 EST
Received: (from alk@localhost) by compound (8.6.12/8.6.112) id AAA00534; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 00:39:07 -0600
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 00:39:07 -0600
Message-Id: <199603300639.AAA00534@compound>
From: Tony Kimball <alk@Think.COM>
To: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject: Re: libc 3.0 
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

   From: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG>
   Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 04:39:07 +0000

   Warner Losh wrote in message ID
   > I'll be happy to add them back, as stubs returning errors, if it would
   > mean we didn't have to bump the major rev.

   The change has been in the tree over a month. People running -current
   will already have the library. There is no easy way to REDUCE the
   version number... It would require everyone to manually delete
   /usr/lib/libc.so.3.0...

Just Do It.

Why make everyone who gets the eventual release suffer the same
indignity?