From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Tue Jan 12 18:48:50 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BAC54E2E80 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:48:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.netplex.net", Issuer "RapidSSL RSA CA 2018" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DFfjt417jz4WBk; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:48:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from [10.187.247.77] (mobile-166-171-187-161.mycingular.net [166.171.187.161]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netplex.net (8.15.1/8.15.1/NETPLEX) with ESMTPSA id 10CImhmq063617 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 13:48:43 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.9]); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 13:48:43 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Daniel Eischen Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: libifconfig non-private in 13? Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 13:48:42 -0500 Message-Id: <9CA63E1A-C206-4FF3-9B29-DB630D06D4A7@freebsd.org> References: Cc: Kristof Provost , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: To: Mark Johnston X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18C66) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4DFfjt417jz4WBk X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:48:50 -0000 > On Jan 12, 2021, at 12:37 PM, Mark Johnston wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFOn Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 09:02:00PM +0100, Kristof Provost wrote: >> Hi, >>=20 >> Libifconfig was marked as private (and experimental) back in 2016. >> It=E2=80=99s since made some strides and has grown a few users. Ifconfig n= ow=20 >> depends on it as well. >>=20 >> While it=E2=80=99s far from finished it=E2=80=99d be more useful for some= users if=20 >> it were public. That would at least imply some level of API/ABI=20 >> stability, which is why I=E2=80=99m bringing it up here before pulling th= e=20 >> trigger. >>=20 >> Does anyone see any reasons to not do this? >=20 > I note that libifconfig doesn't version its symbols. In other words, > compatibility-breaking changes generally require a shlib version bump, > which will be painful for out-of-tree consumers (and if we don't expect > to have such consumers there's no reason to make it a public library). > Symbol versioning isn't perfect but makes some kinds of breaking changes > easier to handle, and might be worthwhile here since I'd expect > libifconfig to keep evolving for a while. Should we add a symbol map > ahead of making libifconfig public? Perhaps there are exceptions, but I would suggest that any new base library b= eing made public provide versioned symbols. -- DE=