Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:19:37 -0800 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@FreeBSD.org>, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: libpthread shared library version number Message-ID: <454A60E9.7020303@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20061102182419.GC774@rambler-co.ru> References: <454936CA.6060308@FreeBSD.org> <20061102115058.GB10961@rambler-co.ru> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0611020824150.12236@sea.ntplx.net> <20061102140948.GA70915@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20061102182419.GC774@rambler-co.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:09:48AM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:25:37AM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: >>> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 04:07:38PM -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote: >>>>> Guys, >>>>> >>>>> I have noticed that libpthread shared library version number in 6-STABLE >>>>> and 7-CURRENT is the same (.2), which causes all threaded application >>>>> compiled for 6-STABLE to segfault when executed on 7-CURRENT system, >>>>> unless libpthread.so.2 is replaced with with its 6-STABLE version which >>>>> in turn will create problems with threaded apps compiled for 7-CURRENT. >>>>> IMHO we should increase version number in 7-CURRENT, so that it is in >>>>> the line of what we have for other system libraries. >>>>> >>>>> Any objections? >>>>> >>>> Last time we bumped them was right before 6.0-RELEASE; we did it >>>> both in HEAD and RELENG_6. We certainly should be bumping them >>>> all again closer to a 7.0-RELEASE, when the RELENG_7 is about to >>>> be created. If we bump some majors now, and break APIs later but >>>> still before a release (we are allowed to do it in -CURRENT), we >>>> would have to bump them again before a release, and because it's >>> No, in -current we force people to recompile everything. Plus >>> we have symbol versioning in the libraries most likely to be >>> effected. If we bump, we should enable symbol versioning at >>> the same time. >> I agree with the last part, but I think we need to bump sooner rather >> than later because we need to support binary only applications compiled >> against 6.x (remember, we're not really supporting anything else so >> smart vendors are going to build against it). >> > Hmm, bumping not versioned libraries *now* and not bumping them > again at pre-release would work, but doing it without also bumping > "to be versioned" libraries is IMO pointless. And if we bump all > of them now, we'll have to bump some of them again when versioning > is turned on by default. No, we will not have to do it. Why would we? It's -CURRENT, so that nobody really cares about backward/forward compatibility within that branch. -Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?454A60E9.7020303>