Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:44:45 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: libc shlib version Message-ID: <20001115124445.A32318@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200011150721.eAF7L2G47704@billy-club.village.org>; from imp@village.org on Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 12:21:02AM -0700 References: <31309.974061923@winston.osd.bsdi.com> <200011130413.eAD4DKj41211@vashon.polstra.com> <vqcd7g09vtq.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <200011131727.eADHR8c42388@vashon.polstra.com> <vqc8zqnmqkb.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <20001113153325.D39667@dragon.nuxi.com> <20001114081845.A76050@dragon.nuxi.com> <vqcwve6td2i.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <20001114155611.A94037@dragon.nuxi.com> <200011150721.eAF7L2G47704@billy-club.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 12:21:02AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> Maybe I'm crazy, but can't we find and kill the API change that caused
> this and back it out for 4.x? I suspect it was the per interface stat
> changes in the network code, but I could very well be wrong.
We should not, the API change was one allowed by the way we bump shared
version numbers. Rather than deal with this single case, we should
consider the issue in the large.
> These sorts of things aren't supposed to impact libc at all. Do we
> know which one caused the problem?
Sure they are. We can add syscalls,etc al. utill the cows come home and
not bump the version number.
--
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001115124445.A32318>