From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 9 18:15:53 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155AC573 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:15:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com (mail-oa0-f46.google.com [209.85.219.46]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D282E11C6 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:15:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id h1so8355704oag.19 for ; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 11:15:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=P8bUaKFUoeuTyXRlwo4lyOy4JGfIGvJfL7Ry7hYNT2E=; b=T3x0KxtAXw7D1P65/u6x+mjSPvXZ/WJoM3m0IWX2DDSBnEiPIyu0zT6PGbZI4Y0uiY j5AQap8FC8lRfX2wtY0Z4q/lYXqZbf39hcwFx78suePfgC0Hk0iCXORssEQ3yj2iufeG fWcVxyf0a8XKIfiZ23OwyaJCfXXa5Mq9M6DwdHhraDtkIEe2wUaJdE34upUtl5sMc0zi MlpytrWQF7Ad+dIZgvxQFDg1If1aLTnmozq4tu6s/LiyKHZo2BsWADRLVz+BR6Y9bdDI 4v4qJr9UXW5EAA1poS39zb3Zmmu35vYycnYxFVlRORH0dUzdUM5n8RuryNr8bj0MFBU+ ZWpg== X-Received: by 10.182.87.73 with SMTP id v9mr25048413obz.90.1373393752420; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 11:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkey-bot.int.fusionio.com ([209.117.142.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fk3sm39370942obb.2.2013.07.09.11.15.50 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jul 2013 11:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Warner Losh Subject: Re: libutil in Debian Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 12:15:50 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6E057FD0-9054-44CD-A806-3AFD8A7196CC@bsdimp.com> References: <20130709113553.GP67810@FreeBSD.org> <20130709165939.GP91021@kib.kiev.ua> <0657575A-BF3A-486F-9582-C01E0FD97E38@bsdimp.com> <51DC4712.20707@coosemans.org> To: Peter Wemm X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmUO8Lo+gC5Vwy+EnG0rmynae4oJyUCB5E5133OaTGe+POuzDNTaM5Ez8dFfAHgRu8IJYOb Cc: Konstantin Belousov , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Tijl Coosemans , Gleb Smirnoff , Robert Millan X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 18:15:53 -0000 On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Tijl Coosemans = 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 : >>>>>> 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