From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Mon Dec 21 20:02:02 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139814C30A2 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:02:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D09NV09PZz4VGS for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:02:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org) Received: from venus.codepro.be (venus.codepro.be [5.9.86.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx1.codepro.be", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: kp) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D840236A8 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:02:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org) Received: by venus.codepro.be (Postfix, authenticated sender kp) id B2AA3412FD; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 21:02:00 +0100 (CET) From: "Kristof Provost" To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: libifconfig non-private in 13? Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 21:02:00 +0100 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673) Message-ID: <1EB6D7ED-F370-42EA-AC66-93D8BC96F29C@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed; markup=markdown Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:02:02 -0000 Hi, Libifconfig was marked as private (and experimental) back in 2016. It’s since made some strides and has grown a few users. Ifconfig now depends on it as well. While it’s far from finished it’d be more useful for some users if it were public. That would at least imply some level of API/ABI stability, which is why I’m bringing it up here before pulling the trigger. Does anyone see any reasons to not do this? Regards, Kristof From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Wed Dec 23 02:57:27 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968884B08D2 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 02:57:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kevans@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D0yYM3p7gz3kdZ for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 02:57:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kevans@freebsd.org) Received: from mail-qk1-f173.google.com (mail-qk1-f173.google.com [209.85.222.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: kevans) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 700F0212A5 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 02:57:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kevans@freebsd.org) Received: by mail-qk1-f173.google.com with SMTP id 19so13891514qkm.8 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 18:57:27 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531mz/bmPqWqrrpmqpu0+O4NYZ0ZZFUwQ4vCgULtX3QNo77lxL6x WT9+93UcPoJrbnt+NY7qmCbC0Fw4p2/gRRFv0N8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx4AC1wpQxwvNsqGONMBvJEzWNa+bGZIdaSxyyysJkv6/i27rLJpsiEpork+I90XXI8e10ac6mtR6I+F4bYGKk= X-Received: by 2002:a37:a342:: with SMTP id m63mr25299390qke.120.1608692246845; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 18:57:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Kyle Evans Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 20:57:16 -0600 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: [HEADSUP] Impending gnugrep/libgnuregex removal To: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 02:57:27 -0000 Hello! Just an FYI- in r368439 (2020/12/08) we switched to bsdgrep as /usr/bin/grep, and we stopped building and installing /usr/bin/gnugrep entirely in r368548 (2020/12/11). I've now posted https://reviews.freebsd.org/D27732 to remove gnugrep and libgnuregex with the intention of committing it within a week or so. As of right now: - bsdgrep is generally a drop-in replacement for gnugrep (performance not quite there, I have some WIP towards this) - base gnugrep has a plethora of known bugs (see the list attached to r368439[0]) - I've received no substantial complaints Therefore, I do not see any value in keeping gnugrep/libgnuregex in base any further. An actually functional version of it is available in ports as textproc/gnugrep, and those seeking improved performance should consider textproc/ripgrep or textproc/the_silver_searcher. Thanks, Kyle Evans [0] https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/?view=revision&revision=r368439 From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Sat Dec 26 21:18:16 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03EFD4C2CB7 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 21:18:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D3Gr76M0Xz4jWT; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 21:18:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) Received: from ivaldir.etoilebsd.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:41d0:8:db4c::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: bapt) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B41552BB94; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 21:18:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) Received: by ivaldir.etoilebsd.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 2DC94E30A4; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 22:18:10 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 22:18:10 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Kristof Provost Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libifconfig non-private in 13? Message-ID: <20201226211810.g4ll4ow23fitmxdo@ivaldir.net> References: <1EB6D7ED-F370-42EA-AC66-93D8BC96F29C@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sm6htsiovo47qbq2" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1EB6D7ED-F370-42EA-AC66-93D8BC96F29C@FreeBSD.org> X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 21:18:16 -0000 --sm6htsiovo47qbq2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 09:02:00PM +0100, Kristof Provost wrote: > Hi, >=20 > Libifconfig was marked as private (and experimental) back in 2016. > It=E2=80=99s since made some strides and has grown a few users. Ifconfig = now depends > on it as well. >=20 > While it=E2=80=99s far from finished it=E2=80=99d be more useful for some= users if it were > public. That would at least imply some level of API/ABI stability, which = is > why I=E2=80=99m bringing it up here before pulling the trigger. >=20 > Does anyone see any reasons to not do this? >=20 I would go the otherway around, any reason to make it public yet? if yes th= ey go ahead, if no keep it private ;) Best regards, Bapt --sm6htsiovo47qbq2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEgOTj3suS2urGXVU3Y4mL3PG3PloFAl/nqIwACgkQY4mL3PG3 PlqoCw//Yq6e3y/Jueiw8dFFbVyD7LhJ7uwRezp5P0ylpcHEo46mD9Wv6JBgK1vo BXFJOYZo3f1JBnguoQiF7EcJMFgV6dC3PDyFmkS67YcPuFXPRlLYV42GgZX1+Grc 0Hulb2TRatk5j2QTAubD//E9a1vZ0KO5Tm/ooudnxN9TIXd/rZzdLVGbhWuyGohv fgMWAGXO8zIgnvzO5rb7lfKTQieoMn+TB/umDM2Dt63T05abMKgMpj34nlcjMfG1 coiuqFcDqZfZSwz5yo2XitrNc7r80S2BMTs6yycHkZWA/A/PDjNCB3+wN6kufXFS l7DZbWs9NKERNNtxCeBvEMrL+5QlFQYwFteNnPw0ArzQvTm6kHEAstQhgs7wkG42 OjzqZda1m2JfDqn424jv2lJjM/0A+pRyK3yaZIlb7kqag+nrG3x2+mkpYzPHDyKF bIno0Ub/HtuUzHL5EzLaIxxnsxn/ef0QIeVQVkQ5fStvfzCD8YQEOjlgX8qJipm8 YsdkbkQoNxH5HgNIKoNJaxVy0bWIVcxNU4znTcYpLO0wbtloYKbvtxxEezyrV75/ ddLLCzbKDoy/9CoOEJLeA+b1btdE1tIl4LXfxzwRxZT3dflIT7qG9mSlkZtq1p+Z CKPbAWnDXWVqr7VL/zn+chrP4TXN2IlgReY6eM3y3RtFG7zQMBY= =2ToE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sm6htsiovo47qbq2-- From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Sat Dec 26 21:33:37 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C7774C319C for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 21:33:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lwhsu@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D3H9r6wZpz4jhc; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 21:33:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lwhsu@freebsd.org) Received: from mail-yb1-f176.google.com (mail-yb1-f176.google.com [209.85.219.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: lwhsu/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF5452B34C; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 21:33:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lwhsu@freebsd.org) Received: by mail-yb1-f176.google.com with SMTP id k78so6634352ybf.12; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:33:36 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531QnJqHATJPGtzii1lBDaXeGKDLVQpTx8gGSsNFUaytW1Jbij1J vC3NC8Sn9n4bAYyULYClAREP9nuO4/tffQYeZmc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyFEKBZJ0r7j0t3xEWt3qhzi1ngiCZ4tU50zQA33XnvIjd8xMIN5JOFyX0NSbzfCfI+/w2d85lR43NPFWQ4nRE= X-Received: by 2002:a25:c107:: with SMTP id r7mr44557516ybf.492.1609018416539; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:33:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1EB6D7ED-F370-42EA-AC66-93D8BC96F29C@FreeBSD.org> <20201226211810.g4ll4ow23fitmxdo@ivaldir.net> In-Reply-To: <20201226211810.g4ll4ow23fitmxdo@ivaldir.net> From: Li-Wen Hsu Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 05:33:25 +0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: libifconfig non-private in 13? To: Baptiste Daroussin Cc: Kristof Provost , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 21:33:37 -0000 On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 5:18 AM Baptiste Daroussin wrote= : > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 09:02:00PM +0100, Kristof Provost wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Libifconfig was marked as private (and experimental) back in 2016. > > It=E2=80=99s since made some strides and has grown a few users. Ifconfi= g now depends > > on it as well. > > > > While it=E2=80=99s far from finished it=E2=80=99d be more useful for so= me users if it were > > public. That would at least imply some level of API/ABI stability, whic= h is > > why I=E2=80=99m bringing it up here before pulling the trigger. > > > > Does anyone see any reasons to not do this? > > > > I would go the otherway around, any reason to make it public yet? if yes = they go > ahead, if no keep it private ;) I would say it is nice to have some scripting language bindings to it, although I'm not sure if this is possible and a feasible usage. Best, Li-Wen