Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:59:45 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: No libc shared lib number bump ? Message-ID: <4734AE21.3020901@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20071109164301.258532a8@deskjail> References: <200710180835.18929.thierry@herbelot.com> <47170A83.6050607@FreeBSD.org> <20071018091950.GB1546@nagual.pp.ru> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0710181038360.22190@sea.ntplx.net> <20071109141155.0ae922a1@deskjail> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0711090952001.16340@sea.ntplx.net> <20071109164301.258532a8@deskjail>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> (Fri, 9 Nov 2007 09:54:46 -0500 (EST)): > >> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> >>> Quoting Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> (Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:43:46 -0400 (EDT)): >>> >>>> (*) libc and other symbol versioned libraries may be bumped >>>> again in 8.0 to reset the numbering scheme back to 0 (libc.so.0). >>>> It was deemed to late in the game to do this for 7.0. >>> I'm curious, why do we need to reset it back to .0? >> We don't have to. It would just make things clearer to have all >> versioned symbol libraries with the same version number since >> they shouldn't ever have to be bumped again. Solaris has all >> their libraries at .1. We've already used .1, but .0 has never >> been used. obrien suggested it, and it seems to make sense >> to me. > > So it's just "cosmetics"... > > Do we lose much if we don't do this? > > What we gain in not doing is, is that users of those libs don't have to > recompile all ports. Compared to the number of FreeBSD installations in > total the number of affected users are small, but those are the users > which help us debug -current (and ideally "all" (sort of) > src-committers). I think those people have more interesting things to > do than to recompile everything. > > Developers which link to those libs are not affected at all if we keep > the current numbers, as they normally don't use it. It may or may not > affect autoconf stuff which checks based upon the number instead of a > feature/_FreeBSD_version or uname -r. Do you have an idea how much > ports may be affected by this? I assume you will coordinate with > portmgr to give this change a try on an experimental ports build. > > While I would be happy to not have to recompile all my ports on the > systems (3 machines, 12 jails) where I use -current, this is not an > objection, just some food for thoughts. I'm pretty sure there will be future version bumps despite the assurances of the "symbol versioning cabal" that there won't be. So I think it should be left at 7 to allow that to happen in the future. > > Bye, > Alexander. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4734AE21.3020901>