cvs commit: src/lib/msun/i387 fenv.c fenv.h

[Warner Losh]

From: Scott Long <scottl at samsco.org>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/msun/i387 fenv.c fenv.h
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:59:13 -0700

> Warner Losh wrote:
> > From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax at portaone.com>
> > Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/msun/i387 fenv.c fenv.h
> > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:44:25 +0200
> > 
> > 
> >>David Schultz wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, Mar 17, 2005, Warner Losh wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>You had better bump the version number for libm before 6.0 rolls
> >>>>>around!!  I've just found a 3rd party binary-only package that
> >>>>>supports 'FreeBSD 5.x' but is linked against libm.so.2.  Ugh.  We
> >>>>>need to bury that mistake and NOT make it again.
> >>>>
> >>>>6.0 already has /lib/libm.so.3
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>So does 5.3.  I think Scott's point is that if we're going to bump
> >>>it for 6.X at all, we had better do it soon or risk running into
> >>>the same mess we had before.  I agree with that, although at
> >>>present I don't know of a compelling reason to do the bump the
> >>>libm version number at all.
> >>
> >>Haven't several functions been removed from -CURRENT version of libm 
> >>recently? IMHO this provides sufficient reason for version bump. 
> >>Actually I think it makes sense to bump all libraries automatically when 
> >>-CURRENT goes one major number up. There is just no much sense in 
> >>preserving partial compatibility.
> > 
> > 
> > One of the problems with an overly agressive bumping is that if you
> > bump, you have to bump *EVERYTHING* that depends on the library to get
> > true compatbility, even the ports (and have different majors build
> > based on using libc.so.5 vs libc.so.6, a real pita).  When I looked
> > into the major abi issues we had a while ago, I came to this
> > conclusion.  I also came to the conclusion that we'd be better off
> > keeping compatibility and *NEVER* bumping a fundamental library's
> > major number to avoid these problems.  Alas, no one listens to me,
> 
> It's because you are proposing something that is impossible to achieve
> in real life.

We could to the 'or' part of my proposal: bump everything.  Right now
we don't have binary compatibility for anything but the most trivial
of cases.

Warner