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

John Baldwin jhb at
Mon Aug 27 14:15:32 PDT 2007

On Monday 27 August 2007 04:55:31 pm Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> > In message: <200708271529.42264.jhb at>
> >            John Baldwin <jhb at> 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 
> >
> > I think it is OK for -current to have rougher edges.  I don't think it
> > is OK to require -current to have rougher edges.
> I think we can agree on that!  I also think there is some confusion
> over whether adding ABI changes to an existing symbol version would
> force us to rebuild ports.  It doesn't.  Once symbol versioning is
> released in 7.0, we can create a new version (FBSD_1.1, or add to
> the existing FBSD_1.1 depending on how the FTS stuff goes) and add
> all the (non-overlapping) ABI changes we want to it _without_ having
> to rebuild ports.  This is a tremendous advantage over -current as
> it is today.

So you want to just bump the version everytime a change happens in HEAD?  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 implies each change in HEAD has its own first-level 

John Baldwin

More information about the cvs-src mailing list