Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:31:53 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, John Indra <john@office.naver.co.id>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch for FILE problems (was Re: -CURRENT is bad for me...) Message-ID: <200102130131.f1D1VrW33790@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:20:51 PST." <200102130120.f1D1KpU56194@mobile.wemm.org> References: <200102130120.f1D1KpU56194@mobile.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200102130120.f1D1KpU56194@mobile.wemm.org> Peter Wemm writes: : If we had taken -current to 500, we could go to 501, 502, etc as : required to stop killing our developers, and prior to entering 5.0-BETA we : go back to the next sequentially available major number (be it 5, or 6 : if RELENG_4 bumps again). I've had problems in the past going backwards on major versions of shared libaries. The major problem is that if I have binaries that refer to libc.so.503, then when the major number is reverted back to 5, it is a nop because ld will use libc.so.503 for new binaries. What's wrong with shipping with say libc.so.505 in 5.0 and then say libc.so.645 in 6.0? Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102130131.f1D1VrW33790>