Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:24:40 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu> Cc: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net, Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru>, obrien@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/locale utf8.c Message-ID: <200710261224.41369.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <1193414454.7390.20.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> References: <200710150951.l9F9pUm7026506@repoman.freebsd.org> <200710261141.51639.jhb@freebsd.org> <1193414454.7390.20.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 26 October 2007 12:00:54 pm Ken Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:41 -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > 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. > > > > Yeah, sorry. I guess I've been a bit grumpy the past couple days and > over-stated the "*absolutely* *necessary*" part above. It should have > read "*necessary*", not "*absolutely* *necessary*". > > I'd just like us to question if it's necessary here. Is there a good > enough way to do this without causing the breakage? I sorta liked > Warren's question. Does this stuff need to be inlined and if not would > that solution avoid the breakage? I can agree that in this instance it would be nice to keep RELENG_7 and HEAD from diverging too much right now. I was more concerned about there being a new general policy. Are you really sure you want forwards compat and not just backwards compat ABI? -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200710261224.41369.jhb>