Subject: Re: Minor Bump in "libc" on Release Branch and Binary Packages
To: Manuel Bouyer <>
From: Frederick Bruckman <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 01/21/2003 08:43:17
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Manuel Bouyer wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 04:59:04PM -0600, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> > "libc" got a minor bump on netbsd-1-6 this month. The fact that it's
> > a teeny bump doesn't mitigate the issue. (The "teeny" bump, rather
> > than a "minor" bump, just solves the problem that was
> > already reserved by a by-now-historical "current".) The issue is,
> > software built against NetBSD 1.6_STABLE, with its,
> > should not be run against NetBSD 1.6, with its, as the
> > ABI change to libc is presumably only backwards compatible, not
> > forwards.
> >
> > I don't see any other option but that we abondon the unified 1.6
> > directory. We can't quite go back to collecting packages under a
> > "uname -r" directory, as "uname -r" on the branch no longer gives
> > reliable indication of ABI changes, but we can create a packages/1.6.1
> > directory, and resolve that packages built against sufficiently recent
> > 1.6_STABLE go in there. Anybody have a better idea?
> Wy not just make sure the packages are built against 1.6 ?
> With bulk-build and sanboxes this is easy, and as the changes are
> backward-compatible, the packages will also run on 1.6_STABLE

As long as folks are doing that... but I don't think enough will,
frequently enough, to keep the collection useful. Our latest
resolution was that all packages built against 1.6_STABLE are OK. With
that in mind, I uploaded a png-1.2.5nb2/i386, filling the hole left by
the alleged png-1.2.5 vulnerability (plus a few other packages built
in the past month or two). "i386" is a principle port, but no one had
filled that hole for over a month. Some other ports have never even
had bulk builds. It would be nice, is all, if developers had a place
to upload packages built against the (soon-to-be) latest release.