From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 6 16:11:24 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BA716A4CE for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2005 16:11:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from FS.denninger.net (wsip-68-15-213-52.at.at.cox.net [68.15.213.52]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B586C43D39 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2005 16:11:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from karl@FS.denninger.net) Received: from fs.denninger.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by FS.denninger.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id j16GBN2s024184 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:11:23 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from karl@FS.denninger.net) Received: from fs.denninger.net [127.0.0.1] by Spamblock-sys; Sun Feb 6 10:11:23 2005 Received: (from karl@localhost) by FS.denninger.net (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j16GBMnv024182; Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:11:22 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from karl) Message-ID: <20050206101122.B23878@denninger.net> Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:11:22 -0600 From: Karl Denninger To: Chris , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <3aaaa3a05020607013bff630e@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <3aaaa3a05020607013bff630e@mail.gmail.com>; from Chris on Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 03:01:49PM +0000 Organization: Karl's Sushi and Packet Smashers X-Die-Spammers: Spammers cheerfully broiled for supper and served with ketchup! Subject: Re: 5.x concerns X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:11:24 -0000 On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 03:01:49PM +0000, Chris wrote: > 4 - compatiblity, I remember using 5.2.1 and pretty much all software > worked well in that and then they did the bind defaulting to base and > libs version jump, why wasnt this done in 5.0 so 3rd party apps could > adjust, now we have a situation where most stuff that worked in 4.x > worked well in 5.1 and 5.2.1 but then broke in 5.3 so effectively 5.3 > was liek a new major version over 5.2.1. I haven't seen much trouble with the rest, but my way of handling the above was to take the entire shared library complement from 4.x and load it in a "compat" directory, then add that to the ldconfig set. I am still running a whole host of application binaries (indeed, probably 80% of them) on 4.x code. No problems so far. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind