Daniel Eischen writes: > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > > > Kirk McKusick writes: > > > > > > > > And mail/postfix and devel/gnomevfs2 (ones's i've found so far) > > > > <...> > > > > > This is why we make this change now so that it will be in place > > > for the masses when 5.2 is released :-) > > > > Can't we bump the libc version so that dynamically linked, non-system > > binaries can continue to work? Having things like postfix and gnome > > dumping core seems excessivly bumpy. Upgrading all ports is a pain. > > I don't think that's a good idea. I've also got changes in > mind that require a libc version bump, but they aren't ready > now. I was saving them for 6.0. Other folks may also have > similar changes in mind. Do we really want to have yet another > version bump? It costs ~1MB in disk space for each libc bump, yes that's expensive. But so is having many random, non-system applications bomb after you upgrade. Shooting all early adopters in the head is really bad for PR. I think that 1MB of disk space is worth it. > For 6.0, can we start off libc at libc.so.YYYYMMDD and move it Yes! Yes! DrewReceived on Fri Nov 14 2003 - 13:13:37 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:29 UTC