On Tuesday 28 August 2007 12:31:32 am Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > : I think you're a little confused here. CURRENT users did NOT have > > : to rebuild ports when fts(3) or stdio(3) ABIs changed. They > > : would only have to rebuild if one of these ABIs changed _more > > : than once between releases_. That hasn't ever happened to my > > : knowledge in the past, and it really shouldn't happen as long > > : as things are tested and reviewed properly. > > > > One of the reasons that it hasn't happened before is that we forced > > people who tried to make, or proposed making, such changes to make > > them in a compatible sort of way. We have all kinds of ugliness in > > and around FILE to try, alas in vain, to be compatible. One of the > > reasons people would like to see symbol versioning is to make it > > easier to change the size of different structures because we have > > stood on our heads in the past to not change sizes. > > > > I'm concerned that the empirical evidence from the past might not be a > > good thing to base our future plans upon. We knew we had sucky tools > > to deal with binary incompatibility in the past, so we stood on our > > heads to not make too many binary incompatible changes. With that > > limitation gone, I think the likelihood is large we will see multiple > > ABI changes between major releases on something. Especially since it > > happens when structures change size and there are many functions that > > take pointers to multiple structures... > > The emphasis should be on trying to get things right, tested, and > reviewed the first time ;-) But also to keep compat shims to a > minimum too. It may be easier to create different versions and > keep compatibility, but the SV'd libraries are going to grow with > compat shims if we don't try to reduce ABI changes like we've > done in the past. I think we need an ABI review board monitored > by -standards ;-) > > If you are really concerned about it (I'm not!), then you can > always add another version in between releases, or just bump > the version every time you break an ABI in -current. I'm not > advocating this because I don't think it's necessary. I don't > think you need to have both private and public versions in > -current, just use 1.x and bump x for every ABI change. -current > will always have all versions 1.0 - 1.x, and prior branches > will have some of them. Whenever -current is branched, both > the branch and -current will once again have all versions > until the ABI in -current changes again.
See, I'd like to minimize the number of symbols in RELENG_x branches to actually be the symbols used only in prior RELENG_x branches as a way to cap the bloat some. Things don't get always get done right in -HEAD on the first try, but the FBSD-current thing gives us a strategy to allow HEAD to be fluid to eventually get things right while not bloating RELENG_x branches with unneeded compat shims. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"