Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:37:55 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threading/KSE problem Message-ID: <200509211737.56671.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20050921205736.GA31449@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0509201446510.9634-100000@sea.ntplx.net> <200509211645.36060.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20050921205736.GA31449@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 21 September 2005 04:57 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 04:45:34PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Tuesday 20 September 2005 02:55 pm, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > I don't think anyone thinks that. But I prefer the old way. If we're > > > not properly keeping track of our ABI changes and what they affect, > > > then let's work on that problem. Symbol versioning isn't going to > > > solve that for us anyways. > > > > Yes, symbol versioning requires the same level of discipline as the more > > constrained library version number bumping. If we have decided that our > > developers are too incompetent to properly bump library versions for ABI > > changes then they are also too incompetent to handle symbol versioning. > > Furthermore, even with the massive library bumps, we have still stuck our > > collective heads in the sand and ignored all the port library version > > numbers. In theory they should all be bumped for 5 -> 6 as well. > > Which is impossible to do since it's a 1-dimensional space and the > upstream vendors are likely to bump their version next week anyway. Yeah, it's a sucky problem, which is part of why I think just bumping everything all the time is not an optimal solution. :) -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200509211737.56671.jhb>