Re: No libc shared lib number bump ?

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:

> Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>> Quoting Daniel Eischen <deischen_at_freebsd.org> (Fri, 9 Nov 2007 09:54:46 
>> -0500 (EST)):
>> 
>>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Quoting Daniel Eischen <deischen_at_freebsd.org> (Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:43:46 
>>>> -0400 (EDT)):
>>>> 
>>>>> (*) libc and other symbol versioned libraries may be bumped
>>>>> again in 8.0 to reset the numbering scheme back to 0 (libc.so.0).
>>>>> It was deemed to late in the game to do this for 7.0.
>>>> I'm curious, why do we need to reset it back to .0?
>>> We don't have to.  It would just make things clearer to have all
>>> versioned symbol libraries with the same version number since
>>> they shouldn't ever have to be bumped again.  Solaris has all
>>> their libraries at .1.  We've already used .1, but .0 has never
>>> been used.  obrien suggested it, and it seems to make sense
>>> to me.
>> 
>> So it's just "cosmetics"...
>> 
>> Do we lose much if we don't do this?
>> 
>> What we gain in not doing is, is that users of those libs don't have to
>> recompile all ports. Compared to the number of FreeBSD installations in
>> total the number of affected users are small, but those are the users
>> which help us debug -current (and ideally "all" (sort of)
>> src-committers). I think those people have more interesting things to
>> do than to recompile everything.
>> 
>> Developers which link to those libs are not affected at all if we keep
>> the current numbers, as they normally don't use it. It may or may not
>> affect autoconf stuff which checks based upon the number instead of a
>> feature/_FreeBSD_version or uname -r. Do you have an idea how much
>> ports may be affected by this? I assume you will coordinate with
>> portmgr to give this change a try on an experimental ports build.
>> 
>> While I would be happy to not have to recompile all my ports on the
>> systems (3 machines, 12 jails) where I use -current, this is not an
>> objection, just some food for thoughts.
>
> I'm pretty sure there will be future version bumps despite the assurances of
> the "symbol versioning cabal" that there won't be.
> So I think it should be left at 7 to allow that to happen in the future.

Well, there shouldn't be.  But even if there is, there is 0.0, 0.1,
etc.

-- 
DE