cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h

[John Baldwin]

On Monday 27 August 2007 03:01:00 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> [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 in releases and -stable branches will be enough
> > extra bookkeeping to keep track of as it is.
> 
> This is something I just don't understand, why is some psuedo-arbitrary
> number somehow MORE confusing/damaging than some convoluted upgrade
> path?
> 
> The only negative (which is bs) of doing so is keeping around multiple
> compat libraries for the same release, which we can simply decide not
> to do.
> 
> (meaning, for your example there does not need to be a libc.so.7
> shipped in some compat package unless someone really wants to)

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!!!!"

etc.

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.

-- 
John Baldwin