From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Nov 15 12:49:48 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC6337B479; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:49:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eAFKneR18808; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:49:40 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id NAA58842; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:49:39 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200011152049.NAA58842@harmony.village.org> To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: libc shlib version Cc: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:44:45 PST." <20001115124445.A32318@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <20001115124445.A32318@dragon.nuxi.com> <31309.974061923@winston.osd.bsdi.com> <200011130413.eAD4DKj41211@vashon.polstra.com> <200011131727.eADHR8c42388@vashon.polstra.com> <20001113153325.D39667@dragon.nuxi.com> <20001114081845.A76050@dragon.nuxi.com> <20001114155611.A94037@dragon.nuxi.com> <200011150721.eAF7L2G47704@billy-club.village.org> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:49:39 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20001115124445.A32318@dragon.nuxi.com> "David O'Brien" writes: : 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. This makes it harder to deal with mixed environments, but not hugely so. I'm thinking that if is just one thing, and it happened recently, it would be less pain to back out the API change. We're not supposed to have major libc bumps in -stable. If it is a bunch of changes or if the changes happened a long time ago, then we have no choice but to fix the problem now and how the "window" isn't too disruptive. : > 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. I can't tell, but it looks like we're agreeing here. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message