Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:51:30 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> 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: <D99F95A3-81D2-47D5-8D4F-D3CCBEB251EE@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <CAGE5yCqAFqOEs_93KgojsgkOO%2B3LVTrhX6%2BRg_BS9OLMxbcfMA@mail.gmail.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> <CAGE5yCqAFqOEs_93KgojsgkOO%2B3LVTrhX6%2BRg_BS9OLMxbcfMA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 9, 2013, at 1:10 PM, Peter Wemm wrote: > 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. >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 proposing we change what we're doing today, apart from adding a = new name. >> I'm not sure that a symlink would actually work, but if it does, = that's an easy way around the problem. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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.. >=20 > 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? I'm not proposing a rename as a way to address this. Warner > --=20 > 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?D99F95A3-81D2-47D5-8D4F-D3CCBEB251EE>