On Monday 27 August 2007 03:01:00 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070827 05:48] wrote: > > > > I think it will be confusing to have missing symbols just as folks would > > have thought it confusing to have 6.x ship with libc.so.8 if we had > > bumped libc multiple times. I also think that just managing the > > interfaces that show up in releases and -stable branches will be enough > > extra bookkeeping to keep track of as it is. > > This is something I just don't understand, why is some psuedo-arbitrary > number somehow MORE confusing/damaging than some convoluted upgrade > path? > > The only negative (which is bs) of doing so is keeping around multiple > compat libraries for the same release, which we can simply decide not > to do. > > (meaning, for your example there does not need to be a libc.so.7 > shipped in some compat package unless someone really wants to)
User questions. "I just upgraded via make world from 6.x to 7.0 and now I have a libc.so.6 and a libc.so.8, what happened to libc.so.7, did something go wrong??? please help!!!!" etc. And yes, I do think it's ok for -current to have rougher edges. After all, we aren't really trying to get people running -current on production systems. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
