From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 2 21:39:58 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 EFFF216A417; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:39:58 +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 75A2743D4C; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:39:57 +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 kA2LduFe013462; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 16:39:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 16:39:56 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Maxim Sobolev In-Reply-To: <454A6164.80606@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: References: <454936CA.6060308@FreeBSD.org> <20061102115058.GB10961@rambler-co.ru> <20061102140948.GA70915@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20061102182419.GC774@rambler-co.ru> <454A6164.80606@FreeBSD.org> 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 16:39:56 -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 21:39:59 -0000 On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Daniel Eischen wrote: >>> 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. > > So far I fail to see any sensible reason for this. We can bump now and turn > versioning later when we are ready. Not a big deal. It just makes for less turmoil in -current. If you run with libraries before symver is enabled, then if you try using packages built on a more recent machine with symver, then those packages won't work. Not too big a deal, but if we know we are going to enable symver, then why not do both at the same time? -- DE