Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 12:15:50 -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: <6E057FD0-9054-44CD-A806-3AFD8A7196CC@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <CAGE5yCpD7WxW6vFtUggYQ%2BBayi1p7fxzq41%2Ba6RCJagqPHV=Fw@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: > 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. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Thanks for pointing this out. >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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. >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Please take it as a compliment rather than as offence :-) >>>>>=20 >>>>>> Also, FreeBSD is just one of the BSD descendants, and all of them = share >>>>>> the libutil. >>>>>=20 >>>>> So, I take it that the change I'm proposing could have disruptive = effects. >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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. >>>>>=20 >>>>> However I'm clearly biased so I'd rather not insist on this. I = leave >>>>> it for you to judge. >>>>=20 >>>> 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. >>=20 >> Or just a libbsdutil.so symlink? >=20 > ld uses lib*.so > ld-elf.so.1 uses the embedded DT_NEEDED that comes from the DT_SONAME > embedded in the *.so files. >=20 > 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 >=20 > 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. I'm not sure that a symlink would actually work, but if it does, that's = an easy way around the problem. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6E057FD0-9054-44CD-A806-3AFD8A7196CC>