On Friday 26 October 2007 10:53:47 am David O'Brien wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 05:31:03PM -0400, Ken Smith wrote: > > What we need to try and avoid unless *absolutely* *necessary* is the > > part Scott quoted above - binaries compiled on 6.3-REL should work on > > 6.2-REL unless there was a really big issue and the solution to that > > issue required us to break that. The reason is simple, people should be > > able to continue running 6.2-REL "for a while" and still be able to > > update their packages from packages-6-stable even after portmgr@ starts > > using a 6.3-REL base for the builds > > This is news to me. > I've never heard that we're that concerned with forward compatability > even on a RELENG branch. We do not break the ABI for backwards > compatability - in that everything (including kernel modules) that ran on > 6.2 must run on 6.3.
Agreed. The solution to the shared /usr/local problem is to use the oldest version for /usr/local. That has always been the case. Forwards compatiblity (what you are asking for) is significantly harder to guarantee since accurately predicting the future isn't much a science. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
