From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue May  6 08:25:42 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB58E37B401
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Tue,  6 May 2003 08:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.nectar.cc (gw.nectar.cc [208.42.49.153])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55A743F85
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Tue,  6 May 2003 08:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nectar@celabo.org)
Received: from madman.celabo.org (madman.celabo.org [10.0.1.111])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits))
	(Client CN "madman.celabo.org", Issuer "celabo.org CA" (verified OK))
	by gw.nectar.cc (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 737A744; Tue,  6 May 2003 10:25:41 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by madman.celabo.org (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 07A8678C66; Tue,  6 May 2003 10:25:43 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 10:25:42 -0500
From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org>
To: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
Message-ID: <20030506152542.GC77708@madman.celabo.org>
Mail-Followup-To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org>,
	Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de>,
	Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com>,
	"Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
References: <20030505225021.GA43345@nagual.pp.ru>
	<Pine.GSO.4.10.10305051855570.10283-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
	<20030505232012.GC21953@madman.celabo.org>
	<20030506095424.G838@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030506095424.G838@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
X-Url: http://www.celabo.org/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i-ja.1
cc: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru>
cc: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 15:25:43 -0000

On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 09:56:06AM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote:
> There is no guarantee that you 'fix' the port by hiding the symbol.  You
> may as well break it. This depends on the function itself and on the
> internal relationships in libc. You have to go through each individual
> port and see what happens anyway.

Please explain.  I _am_ guaranteed that keeping the port from hijacking
strlcpy calls in libc will not break the port.  How could the port rely
on the internals of libc?

Cheers,
-- 
Jacques Vidrine   . NTT/Verio SME      . FreeBSD UNIX       . Heimdal
nectar@celabo.org . jvidrine@verio.net . nectar@freebsd.org . nectar@kth.se