MFC of bump in another mistake?

Sean McNeil sean at
Tue Jan 31 16:03:24 PST 2006

On Jan 31, 2006, at 3:52 PM, Robert Watson wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Sean McNeil wrote:
>> I was wondering if this was on purpose.  Seems like there is no  
>> good reason that it was done on -STABLE and it has really messed  
>> up everything here for me.
>> bumped to
> It was on purpose, but not necessarily for a good reason.  Could  
> you be more specific about "really messed up everything here for  
> me", which sounds a lot to me like "and all hell broken loose"?  I  
> assume there's some sort of library and application versioning  
> problem, but some details would be helpful.

I had several big packages that depended on kerberos and they all  
broke because:

1) was moved to /usr/local/lib/compat/pkg/
2) The symlink was removed and nothing was placed in  

I finally got smart and just added an entry to libmap.conf and so I'm  
not "really messed up...".  That was not accurate in the first place :)

> In principle, other than potentially requiring compat libs to run  
> old binaries even though that may not strictly have been necessary,  
> it seems likely that a binary depending on the old libcom_err  
> depends also on an old libc.  On the other hand, I consider library  
> version number interactions to be mysterious, and likely have  
> missed the point.  :-)

The point I am making is that this is in the -STABLE tree, not the - 
CURRENT tree.  There is no bump of libc and I don't see any reason  
for the revision bump in -STABLE.  IMHO, it didn't make  


More information about the freebsd-current mailing list