Subject: Re: semctl(2) changes
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/31/2000 12:51:50
On Jan 31, 12:26pm, email@example.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: semctl(2) changes
| Why was the system call not renumbered/renamed for backwards-compatibility?
| Won't this change break 1.4 binaries that use semctl on -current, particularly
| if statically-linked?
Because it was decided that we did not need backwards compatibility
for statically linked binaries that use semctl from Aug 8th -> Today;
a. because very few programs [if any] are affected
b. because it is current damn it and we'll break it as much as we like,
[the semctl breakage happened after the 1.4 release] :-)
c. because semctl was broken anyway on some architectures.