From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 12 22:37:22 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E27ACA8; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 22:37:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from anubis.delphij.net (anubis.delphij.net [64.62.153.212]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 831C31065; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 22:37:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zeta.ixsystems.com (unknown [69.198.165.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by anubis.delphij.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3F3026BCA; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:37:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=delphij.net; s=anubis; t=1386887830; bh=WP1P5VWD5CFJ5QgfvHT68FTtWetCexgTwv1EX1j6bq8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject; b=wJsPcF1BvNYdkpcBBYf9Tn8HRdOnUWz+cWaNBhDrU1i0gbC4TeZwhRJ1vyAQgDli3 rUesY4vHm2FaHaDOu0OsUlueJaEpYeG+tvQrVvKDci1ktnryvgZ6YgLJ6UH67m8aMr lfltokERyApqGDwgOeOmsvue1LybNxpdMc+oHauQ= Message-ID: <52AA3A95.9010904@delphij.net> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:37:09 -0800 From: Xin Li Organization: The FreeBSD Project MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Arch" , re Subject: Removal of a pre-existing library interface X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: d@delphij.net List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 22:37:22 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi, Recently, OpenBSD have moved from RC4 to ChaCha20 for their arc4random(3) family of functions and they have later removed a few interfaces for good reasons. On FreeBSD, we aim to maintain ABI stability so we can not simply remove the interface; we can not remove it from -HEAD because they are established by previous -STABLE branches, or we would have to bump major number of shared libraries. After thinking about some other alternatives, I have created two dummy (well, they also log the event) compatibility shims for these two interfaces that gets removed from OpenBSD. Is this a reasonable approach of handling changes like this? Cheers, - -- Xin LI https://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJSqjqVAAoJEJW2GBstM+nsCT0P/12NSDuM4ID2tZI/LztkzGiS RKInS+EX1fyofBx1xxrSVdBgulwcA+SQUrKO20iYcuZt+BeNWjc7zQ4GjSDLfvqF NmFXBTd6nIz+bJWXkxOcE7gTrujWm7bJO6RJnYIDkCIrwUdxMe/x4DaC0GW2+5h7 dg3lByP8JAFwUxC4gABUZbka8lpW+qNNPq8BE0tAkPubN0lpLWtI8+00kTYqlcP4 PmbYLq7fepO4XJS11ibFgFcV+hHLbP88BIzb6eyc4ukf86P+RmZGfZywAJasL+oo 0gs4+l33HpUz9hjYWZFcYityY4Gvqc87iqJmnLDqaSq+ToRyIY9SXMYro6VtGJDg H7TQfu3jKriOEFq870W+jhHeU/+p5n264aEXEBEVvfNHTdcYHtBfZy1/p1e1+Jzh 266xXxh4Rd0EFxnuU5W3tRK0MLZkvGTwzPHPfhlqR1uwnZgsCHzmeB0OuTtTaAgb qoiZbEcioukpy1g3kfBOD+QPJqCB3eQiS5g688kiWUi8rXJj6ZW+JW4QxSTnLLVQ TsrugizeNvctGJi5l3KbZG9c7/v9vQSp8hp6woXf2P38Ru5fOihhWSU0Up6t0MqD +NWS3njmL3hVaC2vGxjg61WOuqw3VbkiH3dy5X04mU1aTu8UUF3pkSAO9wLHhfhH fJm3qtcn06PnAgZKVSaD =dXxi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----