From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Nov 15 14:54: 6 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA5E837B479; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:54:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00928; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:53:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA00534; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:53:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:53:52 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200011152253.PAA00534@nomad.yogotech.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Jordan Hubbard Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami Subject: Re: libc shlib version In-Reply-To: <47225.974328301@winston.osd.bsdi.com> References: <20001115142941.D34085@dragon.nuxi.com> <47225.974328301@winston.osd.bsdi.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > We certainly can. But I didn't realize were were arguing vs. discussing > > the issue. (A discussion that needs to happen sooner or later) > > Discussion is something one has when one has time. As it is, there > will already be one FreeBSD product (a book) going out with 4.2 as it > stands today since there was no other way to meet their publishing > deadline and they believed our original estimate of the 15th when they > set their own schedules. > That's why push-backs are so painful and not > simply a matter of dissapointing a few users when people ask me for > release slides - > the business world, with which we occasionally > cooperate, can't operate to such fuzzy schedules. You've *GOT* to be kidding, right? The business world lives on 'fuzzy' schedules. > So this sounds to me like we no longer need to bump it? I wish > everyone could just make up their minds! If we haven't changed any > interfaces in -stable since 4.1 then we don't need to bump anything. It appears (from the discussion) that the interface change is in the kernel, so bumping the libc minor isn't going to help. > If we have, we do, that's just how shared library versions work. It's not just the library that's change, so bumping the libc bersion will not solve the kernel incompatability problems. It's not as simple as you'd like it to be.... Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message