Date:        Sat, 13 Oct 2001 15:31:32 +0200
    From:        Ignatios Souvatzis <is@netbsd.org>
    Message-ID:  <20011013153132.A26623@beverly.kleinbus.org>

  | As has been discussed on the project mailing lists over and over:
  | We can't bumb the libc major number, ever. We would have to bumb all the 
  | major numbers of all shared libraries - our own and third-party
  | - that reference libc (that is, all of them).

I understand why we need to keep libc.12 essentially forever now, I don't
understand why that means we can't have a libc.13 (and 14, and ...) as well.

Once a new one is created, the old one can remain essentially stagnant,
perhaps receiving only serious bug fixes (probably only serious security
bug fixes).

I keep getting the feeling that there's some technical reason I'm not
understanding why this can't work.

There's one reply I don't want to see though, that is "we can't do that
because the xxx tool doesn't do yyy".   On the other hand, a response like
"Before we can do that, the xxx tool would need to be enhanced to do yyy"
would be just fine...

kre