Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 13:28:20 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols Message-ID: <20030501182820.GA53641@madman.celabo.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030501140549.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0305011046140.73226-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <XFMail.20030501140549.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:05:49PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > Agreed. Somebody just needs to sit down and fix the qpopper port and > then the argument for this change goes away and it can be reverted. qpopper is not the point. The qpopper port was fixed just a couple of hours after I made the commit to libc. (I had sent the qpopper patch to the port maintainer earlier.) Preventing the bogus behavior from ever happening again was the point. A lot of folks are focused on qpopper and strlcpy. I believe that the big picture is being missed. I moved this thread to freebsd-arch so that we could discuss how to hide all (or most, or non-standard) symbols in libc. Not so that we could argue about this particular commit. I'm backing out the commit in good faith and in the hopes that the big picture comes more clearly into focus. However, I must admit some disappointment in the situation. I believe that this was a good change, one that we need, and one that we should see more of. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine . NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal nectar@celabo.org . jvidrine@verio.net . nectar@freebsd.org . nectar@kth.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030501182820.GA53641>