On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
I tried to implement that in version_gen.awk and found that its
error handling was rather weak. Therefore I also improved its error
handling and fixed a few other bugs. Could you please review my
changes? They are in p4 and rev#1 corresponds to the versio
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
I must withdraw my argument against alias versions. My problem
with them appeared to stem from a typo in "__weak_reference" I'd
inherited from your example. :-)
It's funny that the compiler emitted just a vague warning:
foo.c:12: warning: data definition h
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 03:14:00PM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 04:38:57AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, I guess it's not that simple. Take a look at the hack I had to make in
> > libpthread/thread/thr_private.h (line ~67). I had to create weak references
> > to
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 04:38:57AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>
> Hmm, I guess it's not that simple. Take a look at the hack I had to make in
> libpthread/thread/thr_private.h (line ~67). I had to create weak references
> to the functions, so for your example, you'd need something like:
>
> _
On Wednesday 29 August 2007 04:55:37 pm John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote this message on Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 15:30 -0400:
> > On Monday 27 August 2007 02:57:41 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > > Sorry for top posting, but...
> > >
> > > I agree very strongly with Warner, in short, if po
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 10:03:41AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On the one hand, John's approach depends on alias symbols in HEAD
so, e.g., both [EMAIL PROTECTED] (public) and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(interim) can point t
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 10:03:41AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 04:15:16PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> >>On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>
> >>Any symbol in the Symbol.map files (or the generated Version.map)
> >>
John Baldwin wrote this message on Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 15:30 -0400:
> On Monday 27 August 2007 02:57:41 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > Sorry for top posting, but...
> >
> > I agree very strongly with Warner, in short, if possible, reducing the
> > number of major gotchas of running current will m
[Cc: list trimmed]
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 03:29:57PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Quoting Yar Tikhiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:10:34 +0400):
>
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:26:55PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > >
> > > So the really important thing for you is: How
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 04:15:16PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, John Baldwin wrote:
Any symbol in the Symbol.map files (or the generated Version.map)
that is duplicated from the point at which -current was last
branched.
If you go wi
Quoting Yar Tikhiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:10:34 +0400):
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:26:55PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> >
> > So the really important thing for you is: How many ports are affected
> > by this change?
> >
> > Does anyone have an estimate for this?
> >
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 04:15:16PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday 28 August 2007 01:18:38 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
> >>
> >>The only thing I would add is that we can do this by using the
> >>real public versions in -current instead of privat
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, John Baldwin wrote:
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 01:18:38 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
The only thing I would add is that we can do this by using the
real public versions in -current instead of private ones only
seen in current. By using the public versions, -current users
will
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 08:30:29PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:36:15PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : > Daniel Eischen <[EM
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 01:18:38 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > I think this is dead on, yes. Only comment I would add is that I think
> > the "flag days" should be when a new RELENG_X is branched and that all the
> > FBSD-current shims get tossed in
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, John Baldwin wrote:
I think this is dead on, yes. Only comment I would add is that I think
the "flag days" should be when a new RELENG_X is branched and that all the
FBSD-current shims get tossed in the RELENG_X branch. The FBSD-current shims
can be dropped from HEAD on a
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 12:31:32 am Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>
> > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > : I think you're a little confused here. CURRENT users did NOT have
> > : to rebuild ports w
On Monday 27 August 2007 08:48:42 pm Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 06:01:22PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > >On Monday 27 August 2007 05:38:08 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > it is today.
> > >>>
> > >>>So you want to just bump the
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:37:36PM +0400 I heard the voice of
Yar Tikhiy, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> Perhaps we'll have to prune away the oldest unreleased versions
> periodically, but then some people will have to rebuild their old
> ports.
Well, but you can rebuild the ports before the fact. T
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:37:36PM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:34:24PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Yar Tikhiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > :
> > : Oh, indeed! If a user builds an ABI-dependent port before the
> > :
On 2007-Aug-27 15:29:41 -0400, John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>User questions. "I just upgraded via make world from 6.x to 7.0 and now I
>have a libc.so.6 and a libc.so.8, what happened to libc.so.7, did something
>go wrong??? please help"
One major difference is that the symbol ve
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:47:31PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yar Tikhiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:30:48PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> : > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> : > >
> : > >Example: Assume we r
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:34:24PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yar Tikhiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:30:48PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> : > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> : > >
> : > >Example: Assume we r
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: I think you're a little confused here. CURRENT users did NOT have
: to rebuild ports when fts(3) or stdio(3) ABIs changed. They
: would only have to rebuild if one
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 08:30:29PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:36:15PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : > Daniel Eischen <[EM
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yar Tikhiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:30:48PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
: > >
: > >Example: Assume we released 7.0-R with all symbols at FBSD_1.0.
: > >Before the 8.0 release cycl
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yar Tikhiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:30:48PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
: > >
: > >Example: Assume we released 7.0-R with all symbols at FBSD_1.0.
: > >Before the 8.0 release cycl
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
: >
: > Example: Assume we released 7.0-R with all symbols at FBSD_1.0.
: > Before the 8.0 release cycle starts, struct FTS and struct FILE
: > change, perhaps a few times
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:30:48PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> >
> >Example: Assume we released 7.0-R with all symbols at FBSD_1.0.
> >Before the 8.0 release cycle starts, struct FTS and struct FILE
> >change, perhaps a few times each, thus affecting the
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:36:15PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: > Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > : I guess the build system should be more tole
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
Example: Assume we released 7.0-R with all symbols at FBSD_1.0.
Before the 8.0 release cycle starts, struct FTS and struct FILE
change, perhaps a few times each, thus affecting the fts(3) and
stdio(3) global symbols. At the very first change to a symbol or
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:36:15PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : I guess the build system should be more tolerant of this, but
> : there are bound to be problems regardless. I don't see why
> : the instal
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 06:01:22PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> >On Monday 27 August 2007 05:38:08 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
> it is today.
> >>>
> >>>So you want to just bump the version everytime a change happens in HEAD?
> >>
> >>No, I don't see
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 05:38:08PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
An example (for the sake of this example, let's assume that all
non-fts symbols are in FBSD_1.0, and fts_* are in FBSD_1.1):
FILE changes in -current, the new symbol map would add the FILE-r
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 05:38:08PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John Baldwin wrote:
> >That
> >seems to contradict your earlier changes as you are now saying use 1.1 for
> >fts(3), etc. Also since you mentioned MFC'ing one ABI (say 1.5) but not
> >others (1.2-1.4), that impl
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday 27 August 2007 05:38:08 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
it is today.
So you want to just bump the version everytime a change happens in HEAD?
No, I don't see how you get that from what I said...
You originally objected to having fts compat symbo
On Monday 27 August 2007 05:38:08 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > On Monday 27 August 2007 04:55:31 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> >>
> >>> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>John Baldwin <[EMAIL PR
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday 27 August 2007 04:55:31 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: And yes, I do think it's ok for -current to have rougher edges.
On Monday 27 August 2007 04:55:31 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>
> > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > : And yes, I do think it's ok for -current to have rougher edges. After
all, we
> > : aren't r
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: And yes, I do think it's ok for -current to have rougher edges. After all, we
: aren't really trying to get people running -current on production systems.
I think it
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > Typically, I'd guess that we'd
: > need to bump versions of symbols only every couple of releases.
: > FreeBSD only recently started bumping all the shared librari
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: And yes, I do think it's ok for -current to have rougher edges. After all,
we
: aren't really trying to get people running -current on production systems.
I think it is OK for -current to have rougher edges.
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > Typically, I'd guess that we'd
: > need to bump versions of symbols only every couple of releases.
: > FreeBSD only recently started bumping all the shared libraries major
: > number as a precaution because w
* John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070827 12:37] wrote:
> On Monday 27 August 2007 03:01:00 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > * John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070827 05:48] wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it will be confusing to have missing symbols just as folks would
> > > have thought it confusing
On Monday 27 August 2007 02:39:26 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > Typically, I'd guess that we'd
> > need to bump versions of symbols only every couple of releases.
> > FreeBSD only recently started bumping all the shared libraries major
> > number as a precaution because we couldn't maintain binary
>
On Monday 27 August 2007 02:57:41 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Sorry for top posting, but...
>
> I agree very strongly with Warner, in short, if possible, reducing the
> number of major gotchas of running current will make our developer
> and early adopters a lot happier.
>
> It will help FreeBSD
On Monday 27 August 2007 03:01:00 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070827 05:48] wrote:
> >
> > I think it will be confusing to have missing symbols just as folks would
> > have thought it confusing to have 6.x ship with libc.so.8 if we had
> > bumped libc multiple
* John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070827 05:48] wrote:
>
> I think it will be confusing to have missing symbols just as folks would
> have thought it confusing to have 6.x ship with libc.so.8 if we had
> bumped libc multiple times. I also think that just managing the
> interfaces that show up i
Sorry for top posting, but...
I agree very strongly with Warner, in short, if possible, reducing the
number of major gotchas of running current will make our developer
and early adopters a lot happier.
It will help FreeBSD.
One of the things that turns me off to FreeBSD is the feeling that
I get
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: The rule has been that we only bump libraries once between releases.
: The same thing will hold true for versions; they'll only be bumped
: at most once between rel
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote:
:
: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: >John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >
: > : Just as with
: > : shared libraries, we version the ABIs in re
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Just as with
: shared libraries, we version the ABIs in releases and stable branches.
: We have _never_ versioned ABI changes in HEAD because HEAD is a tumultuous
: p
On Monday 27 August 2007 01:10:14 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps a more useful discussion would be how can we use symbol versioning
> > sanely to support this in the future? The fbsd.hack idea could work, but
> > it doesn't work in this case bec
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:39:47AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
On Saturday 25 August 2007 01:06:37 am Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 06:25:17PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
I never added symbol versioning to libc in order to solve
-current upgr
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John Baldwin wrote:
Perhaps a more useful discussion would be how can we use symbol versioning
sanely to support this in the future? The fbsd.hack idea could work, but
it doesn't work in this case because the existing binaries are already
linked. One suggestion that could
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:39:47AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Saturday 25 August 2007 01:06:37 am Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 06:25:17PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > > I never added symbol versioning to libc in order to solve
> > > -current upgrade problems. Sure, you're
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 08:59:06AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : Yar's changes should go in and before BETA1, but we don't need any compat
> : hacks because the compat would be for users that we don't pro
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:26:55PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>
> So the really important thing for you is: How many ports are affected
> by this change?
>
> Does anyone have an estimate for this?
>
> If not, does someone has an exhaustive list of affected symbols? I can
> write a sho
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:26:55PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Quoting Pawel Jakub Dawidek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Mon, 27 Aug 2007
> 15:56:25 +0200):
>
> >On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 08:50:19AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> >Folks running -current are also committers that use -current t
On Monday 27 August 2007 09:56:25 am Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 08:50:19AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Friday 24 August 2007 07:22:12 pm Warner Losh wrote:
> > > What's the overhead of having the transition crutch around for a
> > > while? The benefit is that people
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Saturday 25 August 2007 05:33:16 pm Ken Smith wrote:
: > On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 17:06 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
: > > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Ken Smith wrote:
: > >
: > > >
: > > > [ Not bothering to include r
Quoting Pawel Jakub Dawidek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Mon, 27 Aug 2007
15:56:25 +0200):
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 08:50:19AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
Folks running -current are also committers that use -current to test as
much as they can, but also to use it for day-to-day work. Isn't it wh
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 08:50:19AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday 24 August 2007 07:22:12 pm Warner Losh wrote:
> > What's the overhead of having the transition crutch around for a
> > while? The benefit is that people are less likely to screw up their
> > systems at a time when we want to
On Saturday 25 August 2007 01:06:37 am Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 06:25:17PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > I never added symbol versioning to libc in order to solve
> > -current upgrade problems. Sure, you're free to use it that
> > way, but it would not make me very happy ;-)
On Saturday 25 August 2007 05:33:16 pm Ken Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 17:06 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Ken Smith wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > [ Not bothering to include references for the entire thread, go back and
> > > read them if you really want to... ]
> > >
> >
On Saturday 25 August 2007 05:51:38 pm M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Ken Smith wrote:
> :
> : >
> : > [ Not bothering to include references for the entire thread, go back and
> : > read them
On Friday 24 August 2007 07:22:12 pm Warner Losh wrote:
> What's the overhead of having the transition crutch around for a
> while? The benefit is that people are less likely to screw up their
> systems at a time when we want to encourage people to upgrade so they
> can test the latest/greatest ve
On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 08:25:20PM +0100, Ceri Davies wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 09:39:25AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> > Also agreed. We're FreeBSD. We are tool users. We should use tools
> > in a way that makes sense for us. Solaris' and Linux's experiences
> > with versioning should
On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 09:39:25AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> Also agreed. We're FreeBSD. We are tool users. We should use tools
> in a way that makes sense for us. Solaris' and Linux's experiences
> with versioning should inform our policies, there is no doubt, but
> since I don't think I'
Yar Tikhiy wrote at 09:33 +0400 on Aug 25, 2007:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:08:01PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> >
> > It should be easy to say FBSD_1.0 is RELEASE_7.0, FBBSD_1.1 is RELEASE_7.1,
> > etc. The versioned symbol namespace is mostly to aid the release
> > engineers. If you s
On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 05:06:08PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>
> No offense, but some things have been going in without being discussed
> an -arch or -current. Approval for committing still has to go through
> re@, but that doesn't mean that changes shouldn't be vetted elsewhere
> prior to bei
On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 05:06:08PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> No offense, but some things have been going in without being discussed
> an -arch or -current.
-arch has been pretty quiet recently and could use some more traffic.
I'd rather see discussions like this go on there rather than -curre
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Ken Smith wrote:
:
: >
: > [ Not bothering to include references for the entire thread, go back and
: > read them if you really want to... ]
: >
: > I want Yar's work to proceed as planned
On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 17:06 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Ken Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > [ Not bothering to include references for the entire thread, go back and
> > read them if you really want to... ]
> >
> > I want Yar's work to proceed as planned please. My reasons are:
>
>
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Ken Smith wrote:
[ Not bothering to include references for the entire thread, go back and
read them if you really want to... ]
I want Yar's work to proceed as planned please. My reasons are:
No offense, but some things have been going in without being discussed
an -arch
[ Not bothering to include references for the entire thread, go back and
read them if you really want to... ]
I want Yar's work to proceed as planned please. My reasons are:
1) He is following the exact procedure we will be using from now
on when an incompatible change to a l
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yar Tikhiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:08:01PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
: >
: > It should be easy to say FBSD_1.0 is RELEASE_7.0, FBBSD_1.1 is RELEASE_7.1,
: > etc. The versioned symbol namespace is mostly to aid the rel
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:08:01PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>
> It should be easy to say FBSD_1.0 is RELEASE_7.0, FBBSD_1.1 is RELEASE_7.1,
> etc. The versioned symbol namespace is mostly to aid the release
> engineers. If you start to have FBSD_1.2, FBSD_1.3, and FBSD_1.4
> are interim ver
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote:
There's much resistance to building everything that the build system
might be used being build static. It adds too much time and
complexity to the build system, the opponents say.
So install libc and use LD_LIBRARY_PATH so the build use it
instead of
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 06:25:17PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> >Not to pick on anyone here but Yar did something that works,
> >why exactly are we not allowing him to use the tools provided
> >for this exact purpose and instead making him do conv
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Warner Losh wrote:
:
: > From: Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: > Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h
: > Date: Fri, 24 A
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Warner Losh wrote:
From: Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:25:17 -0400 (EDT)
The other problem, once you get past the build tools, is now all your
ports binaries do no
From: Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:25:17 -0400 (EDT)
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> > Not to pick on anyone here but Yar did something that works,
> >
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Not to pick on anyone here but Yar did something that works,
why exactly are we not allowing him to use the tools provided
for this exact purpose and instead making him do convoluted
workarounds?
I mean seriously, so we have a versioned symbol that c
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 03:14:53PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
this way: if there wasn't symbol versioning and libc was
already bumped, how would you solve the problem? You
wouldn't bump libc again, right?
I've believed that symbol versioning should h
Not to pick on anyone here but Yar did something that works,
why exactly are we not allowing him to use the tools provided
for this exact purpose and instead making him do convoluted
workarounds?
I mean seriously, so we have a versioned symbol that could
possibly be avoided by a lot of hard work a
On 2007-Aug-24 22:36:30 +0400, Yar Tikhiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The reason for exercising symbol versions right now is that "make
>installworld" is sensitive to the fts(3) ABI. If the ABI is just
>broken w/o special measures, "make installworld" will fail in the
>middle and leave you with a
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 03:14:53PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:03:12AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> >>On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> >>
> >>>yar 2007-08-23 05:09:31 UTC
> >>>
> >>>FreeBSD src repository
>
John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday 24 August 2007 02:36:30 pm Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:03:12AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
yar 2007-08-23 05:09:31 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
lib/libc/gen
On Friday 24 August 2007 02:36:30 pm Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:03:12AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> >
> > >yar 2007-08-23 05:09:31 UTC
> > >
> > > FreeBSD src repository
> > >
> > > Modified files:
> > > lib/libc/gen
On Friday 24 August 2007 03:14:53 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> > The reason for exercising symbol versions right now is that "make
> > installworld" is sensitive to the fts(3) ABI. If the ABI is just
> > broken w/o special measures, "make installworld" will f
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:03:12AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
yar 2007-08-23 05:09:31 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h
Log:
Forced commit to not
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:03:12AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
>
> >yar 2007-08-23 05:09:31 UTC
> >
> > FreeBSD src repository
> >
> > Modified files:
> > lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h
> > Log:
> > Forced commit to note repo-copy
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
yar 2007-08-23 05:09:31 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h
Log:
Forced commit to note repo-copy:
These files have been repo-copied from src/include/fts.h
and src/lib/libc/gen/fts.c t
yar 2007-08-23 05:09:31 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h
Log:
Forced commit to note repo-copy:
These files have been repo-copied from src/include/fts.h
and src/lib/libc/gen/fts.c to serve as a base for 4.4BSD
c
95 matches
Mail list logo
