From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Jul 25 08:46:07 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id IAA29911
          for current-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 1995 08:46:07 -0700
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.34])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id IAA29902
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 25 Jul 1995 08:45:59 -0700
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id BAA02402; Wed, 26 Jul 1995 01:28:53 +1000
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 01:28:53 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199507251528.BAA02402@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu, bde@zeta.org.au
Subject: Re: does xdr_float addition requires minor number bumping or what?
Cc: ache@astral.msk.su, current@freebsd.org
Sender: current-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>I suggest (now, as I did before) we bump it now, and note that fact in
>the commit log of the appropriate Makefile.  That way we don't have to
>worry about

>(1) forgetting to bump it, and
>(2) the mad rush of version number changes right before the release,
>    which forced the recompilation of the entire ports tree last time

That way we have to worry about newly compiled ports being annoying to
use in 2.0.5R and maybe in 2.1.  ld.so will print the confusing message:

    warning: libc.so.2.1: minor version < 2 expected; using it anway

Perhaps ld.so meant to say "minor version < 2 UNexpected".  I'd prefer
it to say something like "minor version >= 2 expected; using #1 anyway".

OTOH if you don't bump the minor every time it is technically required,
then newly compiled ports will mysteriously fail in 2.0.5R and maybe in
2.1 if they actually use the new features.

I prefer things to fail unmysteriously :-).

Bruce