On Thursday, April 10, 2003, at 10:50  AM, Andrew Brown wrote:

> why __unsetenv13()?  why not __unsetenv16() or __unsetenv17()?  i had
> always assumed that the numeric suffix on a renamed function was
> somehow indicative of the last release (or first release) that had the
> new function...

It's really supposed to indicate the shlib major that the function 
would correspond to.  The "14" functions are really goofs when the 
policy was not well-defined.

         -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>