![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > > In other words, why doesn't glibc ever just make a new major number and > > make its "struct dirent" be the 64-bit version? > > You can't be serious. Can you even imagine the pain this would cause? Do you know how much pain it causes when you make changes and you do _not_ change the major number? At some point you need to clean up. This issue has been with us for years and years. I don't understand why you'd want to add a totally new system call now. Instead, I'd suggest you just put this on the long list of things to fix for when a new major number is to be used. And yes, you should use a new major number at some point. It is _senseless_ to never update the majors. Just make a clean break, go through every little nagging ugly thing (and there are a _lot_ of them that have accumulated over the years), and make ready for "libc-3.0". No, I'm not suggesting you do it for this one thing, obviously. But there's bound to be _thousands_ of these stupid things where glibc has compatibility crap that makes no sense. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:01 [W:0.153 / U:0.300 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||