On Wednesday 21 September 2005 04:57 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 04:45:34PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Tuesday 20 September 2005 02:55 pm, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > I don't think anyone thinks that. But I prefer the old way. If we're > > > not properly keeping track of our ABI changes and what they affect, > > > then let's work on that problem. Symbol versioning isn't going to > > > solve that for us anyways. > > > > Yes, symbol versioning requires the same level of discipline as the more > > constrained library version number bumping. If we have decided that our > > developers are too incompetent to properly bump library versions for ABI > > changes then they are also too incompetent to handle symbol versioning. > > Furthermore, even with the massive library bumps, we have still stuck our > > collective heads in the sand and ignored all the port library version > > numbers. In theory they should all be bumped for 5 -> 6 as well. > > Which is impossible to do since it's a 1-dimensional space and the > upstream vendors are likely to bump their version next week anyway. Yeah, it's a sucky problem, which is part of why I think just bumping everything all the time is not an optimal solution. :) -- John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.orgReceived on Wed Sep 21 2005 - 19:37:54 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:43 UTC