From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 2 18:39:46 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org 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 4278D16A4C8; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 18:39:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A968C43D7C; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 18:39:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.ntplx.net (8.13.7/8.13.7/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id kA2IdZH0027339; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:39:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:39:35 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Ruslan Ermilov In-Reply-To: <20061102182419.GC774@rambler-co.ru> Message-ID: References: <454936CA.6060308@FreeBSD.org> <20061102115058.GB10961@rambler-co.ru> <20061102140948.GA70915@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20061102182419.GC774@rambler-co.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]); Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:39:35 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net) Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libpthread shared library version number X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:39:46 -0000 On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:09:48AM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote: >> >> I agree with the last part, but I think we need to bump sooner rather >> than later because we need to support binary only applications compiled >> against 6.x (remember, we're not really supporting anything else so >> smart vendors are going to build against it). >> > Hmm, bumping not versioned libraries *now* and not bumping them > again at pre-release would work, but doing it without also bumping > "to be versioned" libraries is IMO pointless. And if we bump all > of them now, we'll have to bump some of them again when versioning > is turned on by default. Actually, remember that this is -current so we only need to bump them once. Symbol versioning could be turned on later, but... > I think more important would be to know > the plans regarding the symbol versioning in 7.0-RELEASE; if the > plan is to have them versioned, then I think we should sync shlib > majors bumping with this change. I agree that we should do this at the same time. -- DE