Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:41:50 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Cc: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, d@delphij.net, Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/locale utf8.c Message-ID: <200710261141.51639.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20071026145347.GA92529@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <200710150951.l9F9pUm7026506@repoman.freebsd.org> <1193347863.93167.11.camel@neo.cse.buffalo.edu> <20071026145347.GA92529@dragon.NUXI.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 26 October 2007 10:53:47 am David O'Brien wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 05:31:03PM -0400, Ken Smith wrote: > > What we need to try and avoid unless *absolutely* *necessary* is the > > part Scott quoted above - binaries compiled on 6.3-REL should work on > > 6.2-REL unless there was a really big issue and the solution to that > > issue required us to break that. The reason is simple, people should be > > able to continue running 6.2-REL "for a while" and still be able to > > update their packages from packages-6-stable even after portmgr@ starts > > using a 6.3-REL base for the builds > > This is news to me. > I've never heard that we're that concerned with forward compatability > even on a RELENG branch. We do not break the ABI for backwards > compatability - in that everything (including kernel modules) that ran on > 6.2 must run on 6.3. Agreed. The solution to the shared /usr/local problem is to use the oldest version for /usr/local. That has always been the case. Forwards compatiblity (what you are asking for) is significantly harder to guarantee since accurately predicting the future isn't much a science. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200710261141.51639.jhb>