Subject: Re: semctl(2) changes
To: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <email@example.com>
Date: 01/31/2000 13:18:50
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 12:51:50PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Jan 31, 12:26pm, firstname.lastname@example.org (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] :-)
I think this is a mistake, because it doesn't take into account the
literally thousands of copies of 1.4M kicking around out there on Comdex
For example, 50 of Bill's and my students at Stevens Tech have this
installed on their machines (as do all the machines in my lab) and we
handed out Many copies at various trade shows -- at least a thousand.
Thor Lancelot Simon email@example.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"