Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 15:14:12 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What to do about rcmdsh(3) ? Message-ID: <20180624121412.GY2430@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxg=LbpQ1NfLQN%2B6hH61HusTdZ8hiuFfxXKb5sU_8oidROw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAF6rxg=LbpQ1NfLQN%2B6hH61HusTdZ8hiuFfxXKb5sU_8oidROw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 03:32:13AM -0700, Eitan Adler wrote: > Now that the rcmds are removed from base, it opens a question about > what to do with rcmdsh(3). > This is documented as > rcmdsh ??? return a stream to a remote command without superuser > And is implemented as a rather simple wrapper of getaddrinfo and exec. > > This isn't something I'd imagine we'd add to libc now-a-days and is > currently broken by default (due to defaulting to _PATH_RSH) > > I'm not sure there is much value in keeping this function around. I > did a rather naive search for uses of this function in ports and > couldn't find any. I'm preparing a more comprehensive patch for an > exp-run. There is a huge value in keeping ABI compatibility. The symbol must be kept. You may remove default version for the symbol if you are so inclined. > > Does anyone have a reason to keep in libc? Any objection to removing > it? If no, is there anything special I need to do beyond just removing > the implementation and references? > > -- > Eitan Adler > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180624121412.GY2430>