From owner-freebsd-current Fri Nov 8 15:16:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD92937B401 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:16:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA3B43E4A for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:16:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gA8NGEpk033633; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 16:16:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 16:16:06 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20021108.161606.79869853.imp@bsdimp.com> To: eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com Cc: ataraxia@cox.net, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [PATCH] note the __sF change in src/UPDATING From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: References: <20021108.142609.112624839.imp@bsdimp.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message: Daniel Eischen writes: : On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote: : : > In message: : > Daniel Eischen writes: : > : All the ports are going to be rebuilt for the release anyways, : > : so this doesn't affect fresh installs, correct? It is only a : > : problem when mixing older 4.x and 5.0 libraries/binaries with : > : __sF-free libc (if I understand things correctly). : > : > The problem is that you cannot have 4.x packages and 5.x packages : > co-mingled on the same system. that's what I'm trying to fix. You'd : > have to rebuild the 4.x packages before they are fixed. : : I don't think this is a show-stopper. Just recompile all your : ports or use the pre-built 5.0 packages. I disagree. : > : This is 5.0; it is a major release and there will be some flies : > : in the ointment. I say bite the bullet now -- don't wait. : > : If we want to provide an optional compatability hack to libc : > : so that folks can compile it with __sF support, then I think : > : that is better than leaving __sF in the release, perhaps : > : with a mktemp(3)-like warning if possible (?). : > : > You'd need a run-time warning for this to be effective. I'm not sure : > that ld.so can do this right now. : : Could you put __sF in it's own file, and put the error in : a .init section? We don't care about static binaries, right? : They shouldn't have a problem. More details please. I'd love for there to be a way to know which binaries use __sF. : > This is not a fly in the pointment, but rather a major incompatibility : > that makes it impossible to have a reasonable mix. : : If it's really a hassle for folks, then just provide the : optional compatability hack and make them rebuild libc. : Or provide a pre-built version that doesn't get installed : by default. I'm not sure that I agree with that solution. __sF was supposed to die in -stable around 4.3, but the ball got dropped on the floor. If it had, then I wouldn't care so much now. I don't see it as a big deal to have it for 5.0, but not 5.1 or 5.2 depending... Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message