From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 9 19:10:51 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6160CA06 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 19:10:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from mail-vc0-x22a.google.com (mail-vc0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22a]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3171607 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 19:10:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hf12so4691345vcb.29 for ; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:10:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wemm.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=a5mDNi+KYa7LPigqwtwuXuIINsfuB8RwytU5YWSKD14=; b=mBhiJnIcwVbM/st5m/7fs7CxiCV1V0VIu174oJbKwGDffE/q8bAl8CVV3W6MZ0AIRT oaCF44PN4z1TuZwQlO2EkAsgfiYq5SGYp4jsrlO7DXj7IGBN7asEdz5QkZmZuqZr9hio YUXEKdh2dLCY4zdnlUqRy6LrHk0C5NaydNjj0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=a5mDNi+KYa7LPigqwtwuXuIINsfuB8RwytU5YWSKD14=; b=XW+uAoxMiqDa75vO6B7FFteL1ZfE1kkMqFAuaENL0+mViAGUPfPibji3t4LN7jW3fH z0jnV8MWrRH+Lk3L/Hmtd7OWB1NMsxpMAlTy8XKpGSQuVgZyIjrKaoUy1fn/+W6Zx3BO KXYFQtlH8GhUyqcFiyRodtyJsCtKDnN+QQOzT1I5kHIqRcE7ch/Ma+6Y7B1TUfwFURrQ 5A3n6XV4PNb+RRQ92h2lBaCdlvwhX1UnA/taam1cVKfy660NbAIHVWWdCGw0TH8dY0cD i/xILVJKYTeRkKCj623i+JRuvqHAQkFzO2FUhxfEDiw1ynua38OKrbFXZhLpJZejSyQE OtvA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.24.133 with SMTP id u5mr6595585vdf.115.1373397050678; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.221.37.198 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 12:10:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <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> <6E057FD0-9054-44CD-A806-3AFD8A7196CC@bsdimp.com> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 12:10:50 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: libutil in Debian From: Peter Wemm To: Warner Losh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl6/8GHaNILUq6nje81E6zkRTTwEnFIVjgqLQrf0utpzIjMOKpDPrGLYMExh2ZqSlo0+3aE 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 19:10:51 -0000 On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: [..] >> 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. No, it'd have to be the other way around I think. We *need* -lutil to work forever. It was hard enough getting people to look in there in the first place and now there's a ton of released tarballs with it baked in. It's been hard enough to get people to fix freebsd-1* vs freebsd-1.* in autoconf. The DT_SONAME would solve a runtime ld-elf.so.1 compatability problem if glibc happens to name its libutil.so.N the same as ours. However I don't remember glibc using the same numbering conventions as us (they seem to like major.minor.micro while we have major only.. if I recall correctly) so even that shouldn't be an issue. > I'm not sure that a symlink would actually work, but if it does, that's an easy way around the problem. To be clear, *we* don't have a problem with the status quo. The change breaks a bunch of stuff and I'm not sure what we gain from it. What does glibc put in its libutil? Is it meant to be a bsdish-libutil compatability API? or something completely different? How did this even happen in the first place? I'd like to understand what exactly it is we're being asked to work around.. For example, if glibc ships a bsd-ish subset of libutil and we rename ours to something other than libutil, then wouldn't that make us incompatible with the convention we started and glibc picked up? -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV UTF-8: So you can \342\200\231 .. for when a ' just won't do