Re: HEADS UP: compat6x

On Sunday 03 December 2006 09:58, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, 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 ...
> 
> And we're going to enable symbol versioning which also
> requires all libraries to have their version bumped
> regardless.  Once we have symbol versioning, we will
> not have to bump library versions again (at least
> in the libraries that are symbol versioned - libc,
> libm, libthr, libptthread).

Yes, but it doesn't hurt to just bump things now.  I actually agree with 
John's argument that it is beneficial to allow folks on current to safely 
use -stable apps by doing the library bump at first breakage.  Granted, after 
7.0 that policy will be obsolete, but it is still relevant for 7-current. :)  
Heck, why not just enable symbol versioning in current by default now 
anyways?

-- 
John Baldwin