Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 19:23:30 +0200 From: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@coosemans.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libutil in Debian Message-ID: <51DC4712.20707@coosemans.org> In-Reply-To: <0657575A-BF3A-486F-9582-C01E0FD97E38@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) ------enig2GXHGOQFHUQPPXUJOBDRV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 19= 88, >>>> and the fact that GNU has taken that name in 1996 isn't reason for B= SD >>>> 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 sh= are >>>> the libutil. >>> >>> So, I take it that the change I'm proposing could have disruptive eff= ects. >>> >>> 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. >=20 > 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? ------enig2GXHGOQFHUQPPXUJOBDRV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (FreeBSD) iF4EAREIAAYFAlHcRxcACgkQfoCS2CCgtit1IAD/RNS+KY9VQ+ojDRKX29XPWycY emkyrFEw+IHATWMhHeAA/38JnDcL1Nn8Uer5UYk2P/k5hBoeeJE5hM0S2dbtdBFz =v3Sw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------enig2GXHGOQFHUQPPXUJOBDRV--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51DC4712.20707>