Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:39:35 -0500 (EST)
From:      Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
To:        Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org>
Cc:        current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: libpthread shared library version number
Message-ID:  <Pine.GSO.4.64.0611021337530.13428@sea.ntplx.net>
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
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:09:48AM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote:
>>
>> 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.

Actually, remember that this is -current so we only need to bump
them once.  Symbol versioning could be turned on later, but...

>  I think more important would be to know
> the plans regarding the symbol versioning in 7.0-RELEASE; if the
> plan is to have them versioned, then I think we should sync shlib
> majors bumping with this change.

I agree that we should do this at the same time.

-- 
DE



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0611021337530.13428>