From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 2 21:19:49 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 66E2716A407; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:19:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sippysoft.com (gk.360sip.com [72.236.70.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D2743D49; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:19:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.1.47] ([204.244.149.125]) (authenticated bits=0) by sippysoft.com (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kA2LJhjs014588 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:19:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <454A60E9.7020303@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:19:37 -0800 From: Maxim Sobolev Organization: Sippy Software, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ruslan Ermilov References: <454936CA.6060308@FreeBSD.org> <20061102115058.GB10961@rambler-co.ru> <20061102140948.GA70915@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20061102182419.GC774@rambler-co.ru> In-Reply-To: <20061102182419.GC774@rambler-co.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-U; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Daniel Eischen , current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: libpthread shared library version number X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:19:49 -0000 Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:09:48AM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:25:37AM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: >>> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 04:07:38PM -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote: >>>>> Guys, >>>>> >>>>> I have noticed that libpthread shared library version number in 6-STABLE >>>>> and 7-CURRENT is the same (.2), which causes all threaded application >>>>> compiled for 6-STABLE to segfault when executed on 7-CURRENT system, >>>>> unless libpthread.so.2 is replaced with with its 6-STABLE version which >>>>> in turn will create problems with threaded apps compiled for 7-CURRENT. >>>>> IMHO we should increase version number in 7-CURRENT, so that it is in >>>>> the line of what we have for other system libraries. >>>>> >>>>> Any objections? >>>>> >>>> Last time we bumped them was right before 6.0-RELEASE; we did it >>>> both in HEAD and RELENG_6. We certainly should be bumping them >>>> all again closer to a 7.0-RELEASE, when the RELENG_7 is about to >>>> be created. If we bump some majors now, and break APIs later but >>>> still before a release (we are allowed to do it in -CURRENT), we >>>> would have to bump them again before a release, and because it's >>> No, in -current we force people to recompile everything. Plus >>> we have symbol versioning in the libraries most likely to be >>> effected. If we bump, we should enable symbol versioning at >>> the same time. >> 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. No, we will not have to do it. Why would we? It's -CURRENT, so that nobody really cares about backward/forward compatibility within that branch. -Maxim