Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 08:16:15 +0200 From: John Hay <jhay@meraka.org.za> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org, Rene Ladan <r.c.ladan@gmail.com> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: compat6x Message-ID: <20061203061615.GA15517@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0612021037430.9206@sea.ntplx.net> References: <456E5DAB.10608@FreeBSD.org> <457160A3.5060209@gmail.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0612021037430.9206@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 10:38:54AM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Rene Ladan wrote: > > >Marcus Alves Grando schreef: > >>Hi list, > >> > >>I make compat6x port. If someone need or can help to test, please > >>download shar here: > >> > >>http://marcus.grupos.com.br:8080/patch/compat6x.shar > >> > >>Any feedback are welcome. > >> > >Would this be a nice opportunity to bump the version of libpthread.so ? > > Se the other thread(s) in current about that. In short, > yes we have to bump libpthread.so but it should be done > along with bumping all libraries. But even in all those other threads, never had there been a decent answer why it is good to have two incompatible libraries with the same number. It can only cause hurt. I still vote for bumping lib versions as soon as we do something that cause them to be incompatible with the same versioned one in a release. Having api churn in a lib version that is only available in -current is much more acceptable that churning a lib that have the same version as one in a release. John -- John Hay -- John.Hay@meraka.csir.co.za / jhay@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061203061615.GA15517>