In article <200607260659.CAA03656@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>,
der Mouse  <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> wrote:
>> I think the change is fine.  However I'm wondering if it wouldn't be
>> better to somehow version the _ftsent structure.  I doubt that du
>> will be the only directory-walking application that will need to deal
>> with 64-bit values.
>
>That sounds plausible.  But I see no need to version FTSENT.  As long
>as the existing fields remain valid and at the same offsets, we can add
>all the new fields we like.  We can even publicize the new fields.
>After all, the interface does not include its clients ever allocating
>an FTSENT.
>
>Maybe add fts_qnumber, or fts_uqnumber, or some such?

It is simple enough to version these days...

christos