Re: HEADS UP: compat6x

On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:56:59PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> John Hay wrote:
> > But even in all those other threads, never had there been a decent
> > answer why it is good to have two incompatible libraries with the same
> > number. It can only cause hurt.
> 
> No one has said that it won't be changed, only that it won't be
> changed right this minute. It's ok if you don't understand all the
> technical points that were made in the previous threads (I don't
> understand them all either). But what you should realize is that this
> is -current, and sometimes stuff breaks. If you can't deal with that,
> run RELENG_6. Sorry to be so direct about it, but seriously ...

Yes I can run something else than -current... I should also be able
to lobby for something if it looks like it can be better?

I understand that there is churn (especially in the libs) in -current.
I don't have anything against it.

I know the lib version numbers will be bumped. I'm happy with it.

I'm just trying to reason that it should first be the version number
bump and then the lib churn.

For the guy that have all the source and regularly recompile everything,
there is no change and he can still do that. What it does buy us, is that
RELENG_6 apps stay working and if people have apps that they do not have
the source for, they can still use it.

It doesn't seem so unreasonable to just swap the order of things that
have to be done in any case? Or is unreasonable?

John
-- 
John Hay -- John.Hay_at_meraka.csir.co.za / jhay_at_FreeBSD.org