From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 9 16:29:39 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E802517D; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 16:29:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D800F1BC5; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 16:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Alfreds-MacBook-Pro-9.local (c-67-180-208-218.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.180.208.218]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C0C71A3C30; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51DC3A71.5040204@mu.org> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 09:29:37 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Millan Subject: Re: libutil in Debian References: <20130709113553.GP67810@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Gleb Smirnoff , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 16:29:40 -0000 On 7/9/13 8:05 AM, Robert Millan wrote: > Hi Gleb, > > 2013/7/9 Gleb Smirnoff : >> With all respect to GNU and Debian the libutil in BSD appeared in 1988, >> and the fact that GNU has taken that name in 1996 isn't reason for BSD >> to change name. > Thanks for pointing this out. > > Please note that my request is only based on practical grounds. It > shouldn't be interpreted as implying endorsement on Glibc's use of > libutil name. > > Historically, Glibc maintainer has been very difficult to deal with. > This has affected non-Linux ports of Glibc as well. In contrast, > FreeBSD community may or may not agree with proposals but is at least > open to discuss things. This (rather than "fairness") is the reason I > try to work things out here and not there. > > Please take it as a compliment rather than as offence :-) > >> Also, FreeBSD is just one of the BSD descendants, and all of them share >> the libutil. > So, I take it that the change I'm proposing could have disruptive effects. > > I do think there are long-term advantages for FreeBSD and the other > BSD descendants in making it easy for their APIs to be deployed > elsewhere. I mean, in terms of portability. > > However I'm clearly biased so I'd rather not insist on this. I leave > it for you to judge. > Robert, I can't promise anything other than maybe a proof of concept in patch form would work? We already do have some utils we have in our base renamed to avoid conflicts such as lib*bsd*yaml. Maybe there's a way to make this work since our system is tightly integrated. Have you looked at what happens with autoconf/automake? How bad does it look from that PoV? Are there a ton of scripts that pull in libutil? Or is that only a small portion of the base? Do you know how to do ports build on FreeBSD to see what breaks? -- Alfred Perlstein VP Software Engineering, iXsystems