Re: HEADS UP: compat6x

On 12/3/06, John Hay <jhay_at_meraka.org.za> wrote:
>
> 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
>

The problem with this idea, among other things, is that at times, during the
development of -CURRENT, you'd be bumping libs every few hours. Since its
impossible to garuntee that a lib will remain compatible, under all
circumstances, its only handled as a best effort thing.