On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Francois Visconte wrote: > Hello, > I think the real question is : is there allways a backward compatibility > of system calls accross patching ? ... > I thinks this is mostly de case....
Yes, that is the heart of the issue. Thanks to all who answered. > -- > Frangois Visconte > > Jason Dixon wrote: > > > On Sep 20, 2006, at 8:10 PM, Patsy wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, John Costello wrote: > >> > >>> This is in regards to a 3.9 system that I installed and am patching. > >>> > >>> After rebuilding the kernel (patches 007 and 009), is it , > >>> unnecessary, > >>> necessary, advised, or imperative to rebuild userland (FAQ 5.3.5)? > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >> Imperative. > >> > >> Your programs might work, but they might not, or they might work > >> unpredictably. The kernel, userland (and ports for that matter) are all > >> intended to be kept in sync, not half -stable and half -release, so > >> if you > >> have a -stable kernel, you should have a -stable userland as well. i.e. > >> yes, rebuild your userland. > > > > > > The OP is referring to the patch branch, not -stable. The only time > > rebuilding userland is necessary after a kernel errata is when the > > errata claims it is necessary. > > > > -- > > Jason Dixon > > DixonGroup Consulting > > http://www.dixongroup.net > > > ----
