From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 9 17:34:18 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F441C01 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:34:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from mail-ve0-x236.google.com (mail-ve0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::236]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C20651FB4 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:34:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f182.google.com with SMTP id ox1so4911620veb.13 for ; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:34:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wemm.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9QRbuqDHr4SNjlq7LCTjThjAEhLQp8HRz8MZsCzHWTU=; b=KD7b1ReiIh6O3n7sUI2nLp0Ba+mzFLJTFqqH7kz61UaudCDNT+n4vm7WfzzoFq45lv 0z+iHhf5ACeVlmkHFlEWcOENjoaKYFxxLzZEuGjHMFe/DAwov4NRPU4Wkk4NourvhWZr uqNqFxQfDdxCAJS8lCp3DGoij6vBTuN48mqs4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=9QRbuqDHr4SNjlq7LCTjThjAEhLQp8HRz8MZsCzHWTU=; b=LoONGn7B2V8kvib7Gke8wWTCLpBj2iG3EsQrEDlHeYW4nWcPHf0zluDFfMtebfLlpo CWHOnUo7WEjApqhM9K9zZegSzaaTL0Tzw46bq+AypPyvbNHT0BLPYT5wbM66ZGqHjGg3 aQZ3/mADz68Juqb7aLVj6XOs8X1RUhTExb0YBbLGclhb7wMCEbXeUFaTqLsaD3pndhO/ ShV1EzQa2H5YMGa8sCXb60GY4vmGehBWTi3pNkyvcj9r5II4oIOP9bDefDKGUefsWa7Z 4kJQzZH5IIvybL52Pp8x00CPNhnEK+cwd8bhaesMq1wx2lhyLfh+GKXr8TT2WNokgdqc IwWg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.47.131 with SMTP id n3mr17154732vcf.7.1373391257278; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:34:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.221.37.198 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:34:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51DC4712.20707@coosemans.org> References: <20130709113553.GP67810@FreeBSD.org> <20130709165939.GP91021@kib.kiev.ua> <0657575A-BF3A-486F-9582-C01E0FD97E38@bsdimp.com> <51DC4712.20707@coosemans.org> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:34:17 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: libutil in Debian From: Peter Wemm To: Tijl Coosemans Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlcVoNaFFtZQ2C9otJ143k3Z8kTJ9kG7/uaYxCR5YzllFULEbiya258SV9DHf/kqc35qi9u Cc: Konstantin Belousov , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Gleb Smirnoff , Robert Millan X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:34:18 -0000 On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On 2013-07-09 19:13, Warner Losh wrote: >> On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 05:05:00PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: >>>> 2013/7/9 Gleb Smirnoff : >>>>> With all respect to GNU and Debian the libutil in BSD appeared in 1988, >>>>> and the fact that GNU has taken that name in 1996 isn't reason for BSD >>>>> to change name. >>>> >>>> Thanks for pointing this out. >>>> >>>> Please note that my request is only based on practical grounds. It >>>> shouldn't be interpreted as implying endorsement on Glibc's use of >>>> libutil name. >>>> >>>> Historically, Glibc maintainer has been very difficult to deal with. >>>> This has affected non-Linux ports of Glibc as well. In contrast, >>>> FreeBSD community may or may not agree with proposals but is at least >>>> open to discuss things. This (rather than "fairness") is the reason I >>>> try to work things out here and not there. >>>> >>>> Please take it as a compliment rather than as offence :-) >>>> >>>>> Also, FreeBSD is just one of the BSD descendants, and all of them share >>>>> the libutil. >>>> >>>> So, I take it that the change I'm proposing could have disruptive effects. >>>> >>>> I do think there are long-term advantages for FreeBSD and the other >>>> BSD descendants in making it easy for their APIs to be deployed >>>> elsewhere. I mean, in terms of portability. >>>> >>>> However I'm clearly biased so I'd rather not insist on this. I leave >>>> it for you to judge. >>> >>> Renaming the libutil would break the ABI of the base system. >>> If you are introducing new interfaces to the other systems, you >>> can use a library name you find suitable. But for the library >>> which is linked with significant number of existing binaries, >>> rename is not an easy option. >> >> Can we use libmap.conf to create an alias for the new name on FreeBSD >> so that programs that link against libbsdutil, to pick an arbitrary >> name, can work and libbsdutil can be packaged for debian? This will >> allow things to be portable, while allowing repackaging by Debian. > > Or just a libbsdutil.so symlink? ld uses lib*.so ld-elf.so.1 uses the embedded DT_NEEDED that comes from the DT_SONAME embedded in the *.so files. Autoconf knows things like (a few random samples) checking for openpty() in -lutil checking for kvm_open in libutil checking for login_getclass() in -lutil While we could change the DT_SONAME, I don't see a way around "-lutil" without a lot of pain on our end. -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV UTF-8: So you can \342\200\231 .. for when a ' just won't do ZFS must be the bacon of file systems. "everything's better with ZFS"