Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost> writes: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:23:38PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote: >> >> Yes, should... But we don't rename symbols in 3rd party libraries that are >> not >> included in the base system. > > And, given how pkgsrc works, we can't really bump their major version > numbers in a libc-date-dependent way. > > Again it's starting to look to me as if sooner or later, we had really > better bump the libc major version number instead of continuing with > all this renaming. _That_ would fix the 3rd-party libraries as they > would then depend on a different version of libc. It wouldn't fix them. It would make them fail more obviously. In pkgsrc, one basically has to have a consistent set of packages that are built on the same OS version built from the same pkgsrc version and we aren't really going to get away from those rules (although clueful people can get away with breaking the rules). So it's not clear to me how much value there is in fixing intermediate things that won't let us fully address the compat issues.
Attachment:
pgp0PT8E8FukJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature