Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 12:10:50 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Tijl Coosemans <tijl@coosemans.org>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: libutil in Debian Message-ID: <CAGE5yCqAFqOEs_93KgojsgkOO%2B3LVTrhX6%2BRg_BS9OLMxbcfMA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6E057FD0-9054-44CD-A806-3AFD8A7196CC@bsdimp.com> 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> <CAGE5yCpD7WxW6vFtUggYQ%2BBayi1p7fxzq41%2Ba6RCJagqPHV=Fw@mail.gmail.com> <6E057FD0-9054-44CD-A806-3AFD8A7196CC@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: [..] >> While we could change the DT_SONAME, I don't see a way around "-lutil" >> without a lot of pain on our end. > > We would continue to install libutil.*, so that solves all these problems. We'd just provide a compatibility thing that allows one to link with -lbsduitl also. No, it'd have to be the other way around I think. We *need* -lutil to work forever. It was hard enough getting people to look in there in the first place and now there's a ton of released tarballs with it baked in. It's been hard enough to get people to fix freebsd-1* vs freebsd-1.* in autoconf. The DT_SONAME would solve a runtime ld-elf.so.1 compatability problem if glibc happens to name its libutil.so.N the same as ours. However I don't remember glibc using the same numbering conventions as us (they seem to like major.minor.micro while we have major only.. if I recall correctly) so even that shouldn't be an issue. > I'm not sure that a symlink would actually work, but if it does, that's an easy way around the problem. To be clear, *we* don't have a problem with the status quo. The change breaks a bunch of stuff and I'm not sure what we gain from it. What does glibc put in its libutil? Is it meant to be a bsdish-libutil compatability API? or something completely different? How did this even happen in the first place? I'd like to understand what exactly it is we're being asked to work around.. For example, if glibc ships a bsd-ish subset of libutil and we rename ours to something other than libutil, then wouldn't that make us incompatible with the convention we started and glibc picked up? -- 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGE5yCqAFqOEs_93KgojsgkOO%2B3LVTrhX6%2BRg_BS9OLMxbcfMA>