Re: libpthread shared library version number

Sam Leffler wrote:
> Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>> Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 01:19:37PM -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>>>> Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:09:48AM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote:
>>>>> Hmm, bumping not versioned libraries *now* and not bumping them
>>>>> again at pre-release would work, but doing it without also bumping
>>>>> "to be versioned" libraries is IMO pointless.  And if we bump all
>>>>> of them now, we'll have to bump some of them again when versioning
>>>>> is turned on by default.
>>>> No, we will not have to do it. Why would we? It's -CURRENT, so that
>>>> nobody really cares about backward/forward compatibility within that
>>>> branch.
>>>>
>>> I'd very much like NOT to have to recompile all of my installed
>>> ports on my -CURRENT boxes the day we turn on symbol versioning,
>>> and that will require the shlib major bump of those libs that
>>> will provide symbol versioning.  If we do the bump now, we'll
>>> have to do it again later, and that's slightly against the rule
>>> that we only bump them once inside a branch.
>> Repeat after me: *we won't have to do it* since we don't generally care
>> whether or not one have to rebuild all or some of his packages in
>> current due to some ongoing changes.
> 
> Doing stuff like this adds unnecessary burden to folks running HEAD.
> The result is fewer people will track the code and less testing will be
> done.  Unless there's a valid reason for doing it separately it seems
> best to wait for a point where some other change goes in that requires
> users to update their ports.

Well, we have some real problem at hand (inability to use -STABLE 
threaded binaries on -CURRENT system) versus some potential future 
problem. I would vote that we go and solve current problem and deal with 
future problem when time will come.

Besides, according to deischen, enabling symbol versioning won't create 
any backward binary compatibility issues, so that unless he misses 
something there will be no problem in future at all, which makes the 
whole point moot.

-Maxim