On 10/26/07, Ken Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 23:14 +0400, Andrey Chernov wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 01:10:13PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > > >> Well, I think the problem is not exposing a new symbol by itself, but > > >> __mb_sb_limit is being used in _ctype.h, in a form of __inline > > >> functions. Therefore, the change will break new binaries running on > > >> older systems. Personally I think this is acceptable, but maybe we > > >> could have a better way to avoid this, because the binaries are no > > >> longer backward compatible (i.e. you may have trouble running a program > > >> compiled for 6.3-RELEASE on 6.2-RELEASE, if it uses locale bits). > > > > > > If this is true, then it directly violates the API/ABI compatability > > > guidelines that were developed and agreed to by the project in 2005. > > > > We define only backward compatibility, not forward one. Do you f.e. expect > > to run 7x binaries on 6x as is? At least compat7x required (if all syscall > > are the same). > > > > That's not what Scott was referring to. > > It's expected that 8.X binaries *may* not run on 7.X without compat > libraries or something along those lines. That said this sort of > breakage is what I was hoping we could avoid having happen before 7.0 > was out the door (it's what I meant by asking people to be a bit > conservative until we're done with 7.0) because it does tend to add to > peoples' general frustration level at a time there is enough stress > coming from other sources. > > What we need to try and avoid unless *absolutely* *necessary* is the > part Scott quoted above - binaries compiled on 6.3-REL should work on > 6.2-REL unless there was a really big issue and the solution to that > issue required us to break that. The reason is simple, people should be > able to continue running 6.2-REL "for a while" and still be able to > update their packages from packages-6-stable even after portmgr@ starts > using a 6.3-REL base for the builds (I think they use RELENG_6 for the > most part but I could be wrong). And this sort of backwards > compatibility is a big help to large sites that do things like have an > NFS server where local software gets installed (we build stuff and stick > it in /util/bin which is NFS mounted from one machine). Its a big help > running a site like this if all machines don't need to be at exactly the > same OS rev as the server.
I will work with delphij and try to find a solution. Thanks, Rong-En Fan _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
