On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 01:49:39PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> This makes it harder to deal with mixed environments, but not hugely
> so.
Can you expand on this?
> We're not supposed to have major libc bumps in -stable.
I'm not aware of this rule since the switch to ELF. I don't believe it
is
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jordan Hubbard writes:
: Can we just stop arguing about this and bump the frickin' numbers already?
: Time is running out!
That's your call as RE. Since we don't know what change caused it,
that's likely the least bad thing we can do.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send
Can we just stop arguing about this and bump the frickin' numbers already?
Time is running out!
- jordan
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 12:21:02AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> > Maybe I'm crazy, but can't we find and kill the API change that caused
> > this and back it out for 4.x? I suspect it was t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David O'Brien" writes:
: On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 12:21:02AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
: > Maybe I'm crazy, but can't we find and kill the API change that caused
: > this and back it out for 4.x? I suspect it was the per interface stat
: > changes in the network cod
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 02:15:49PM -0800, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
> Hmm. That's a good point. So you mean there is no way to build a
> libc that works for 4.2 that will also work with a 4.0 kernel?
Yes.
> (I don't think just changing the libc source on a 4.0 machine will
> accom
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 04:03:19PM -0600, Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote:
> Is the bump going to happen before 4.2 or not?
I don't know. I'd like to hear Satoshi's response to my last email on
the topic. The typical test [in this case] would be does a 4.0R shared
binary still run fine on a 4.2-R syst
* From: "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Not sure if you saw this message. The more I think about it, I'm not
* sure bumping the shared libc version will accomplish anything other than
* require a compat4x distribution for 4.2-RELEASE. For the 4.0R upgrade
* kit you'd just have to inc
At 03:26 PM 11/13/00 -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:06:41PM -0800, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami
>wrote:
> > * I'm going to go ahead and bump -current's libc today in preparation of
> > * doing in -stable if it comes down to it. I know Garret has been waiting
> > * t
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Thomas David Rivers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) wrote:
> > I really wish we could keep the two version numbers from a.out, so I
> > don't have to worry about stuff like this. :<
>
> You can, if you will accep
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * From: John Polstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * If it contains a new libc, that seems like the real problem
> * to me. It's always risky to use new libs (especially libc) with an
> * old kerne
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 04:44:17AM -0500, Daniel M. Eischen wrote:
> >
> > Why not find what was added and back it out?
>
> Why loose the functionality. Bumping a shared version isn't that big a
> deal.
It hasn't been shown that functionality would b
* From: Jordan Hubbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Any pending bumps should *definitely* occur before the release goes
* out, so consider me all in favor.
You guys may have missed what I said in the first mail. That implies
rebuilding all packages. I can do that, but I'm afraid it will most
likel
> Whether the bump is still possible at this late date is a question for
> the Release Engineer.
Any pending bumps should *definitely* occur before the release goes
out, so consider me all in favor.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in th
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * From: John Polstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> * Satoshi Asami <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *
> * > It was brought to my attention that recent 40upgrade kills all th
* From: John Polstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* Satoshi Asami <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*
* > It was brought to my attention that recent 40upgrade kills all the
* > networking programs. Looking at the plists, the only thing I can
* > think of is that libc.so
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Satoshi Asami <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was brought to my attention that recent 40upgrade kills all the
> networking programs. Looking at the plists, the only thing I can
> think of is that libc.so.4 has somehow lost backward compatibility.
This isn't much
16 matches
Mail list logo
