Subject: Re: semctl(2) changes
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/31/2000 10:32:35
Thor Lancelot Simon <email@example.com> writes:
> > 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
> Snapshot CDs.
and how many users of those CD-ROMs are using semctl() from statically
note that, as i understand it, for dynamically linked programs when
you update both the kernel and libc, your binaries continue to win.
There's probably a cautionary tale here, but to my mind it probably is
"don't go shipping thousands of copies of in-rapid-development
sources on CD-ROM and give users the expectation that they're a
Chris Demetriou - firstname.lastname@example.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.