Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:34:17 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@coosemans.org> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: libutil in Debian Message-ID: <CAGE5yCpD7WxW6vFtUggYQ%2BBayi1p7fxzq41%2Ba6RCJagqPHV=Fw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51DC4712.20707@coosemans.org> References: <CAOfDtXN2fWQAyGNb_ifH9y=zHO%2BGGnSdWnD8C6BzWDTU_7rWFQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130709113553.GP67810@FreeBSD.org> <CAOfDtXOTqzF9=s%2BUv6%2BMoAu0nrmyGrxJz4xaSJYEfDzRvrKx8g@mail.gmail.com> <20130709165939.GP91021@kib.kiev.ua> <0657575A-BF3A-486F-9582-C01E0FD97E38@bsdimp.com> <51DC4712.20707@coosemans.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Tijl Coosemans <tijl@coosemans.org> 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 <glebius@freebsd.org>: >>>>> 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 <brueffer> ZFS must be the bacon of file systems. "everything's better with ZFS"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGE5yCpD7WxW6vFtUggYQ%2BBayi1p7fxzq41%2Ba6RCJagqPHV=Fw>