Subject: Re: NetBSD 2.0 release date
To: Jason Thorpe <>
From: Bill Studenmund <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 12/09/2003 15:20:13
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 02:41:10PM -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2003, at 11:42 AM, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> >But it depends on what exactly you mean by, "support." If it's support=
> >as
> >in, "we help you do it," we already only "support" 3rd party libraries=
> >via
> >pkgsrc. I see no reason to change that.
> So, you're saying that you want to make it harder to correctly install=20
> arbitrary 3rd-party libraries on NetBSD.

No, I'm not. Please read what I said.

I said "support" as in "we help you do it" as in we keep patches around,=20
and update them as the source package changes. That's pkgsrc, is it not?=20
I'm saying that I don't think we need to impliment a SECOND way of keeping=
track of 3rd party patches in addition to pkgsrc.

The part of my note you didn't quote indicated that I am not proposing=20
changing how shared libraries work or how they are installed. Some people=
have proposed such things, but I think they are more harm than they are=20

As an aside, I'm also not proposing we bump libc's version number now, I'm
saying I don't think it'd be so bad a mess that we must avoid it.  While I
think we will need to do it someday, I think we can wait. I think we
should wait until we find a strong benefit, like 30% of the library is
compat code, or if we broke backwards compat we could do something that
would speed up an internal algorithm significantly (I'll leave the exact
meaning of significant to the future).

So what libraries are we talking about? What libraries are people using=20
that they don't get from pkgsrc (and don't come with the base install)?

Take care,


Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)