From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Feb 28 13:48:12 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC3C37B401 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:48:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from wall.polstra.com (wall-gw.polstra.com [206.213.73.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02ECA43FAF for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:48:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Received: from vashon.polstra.com (vashon.polstra.com [206.213.73.13]) by wall.polstra.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1SLm9u5066237 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:48:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jdp@vashon.polstra.com) Received: (from jdp@localhost) by vashon.polstra.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1SLm8pc031639; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:48:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jdp) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:48:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200302282148.h1SLm8pc031639@vashon.polstra.com> To: ports@freebsd.org From: John Polstra Cc: joek@mail.flyingcroc.net Subject: Re: WARNING: portupgrade considered harmful In-Reply-To: <3E5FD22B.3040904@mail.flyingcroc.net> References: <3E5FB1F8.4050405@mail.flyingcroc.net> <3E5FC0DD.1080704@mail.flyingcroc.net> <200302282102.h1SL22Sm031572@vashon.polstra.com> <3E5FD22B.3040904@mail.flyingcroc.net> Organization: Polstra & Co., Seattle, WA Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In article <3E5FD22B.3040904@mail.flyingcroc.net>, Joe Kelsey wrote: > > Sorry, the last time I had a conversation about rtld-elf, I remember it > being with you. I apologize for my memory issues. I also apologize to > the list for naming John incorrectly. No, your memory is fine. It probably was me that you discussed it with. But I dropped maintainership of the dynamic linker quite some time ago. What I objected to was your putting words in my mouth. The "correct" behavior of the dynamic linker is a whole lot more complicated than you realize. In my experience, if you make some expedient change to accomodate one port, you end up breaking a dozen others. When I wrote the dynamic linker, I followed the standards that existed at the time. (Namely, SVR4 and Sun's de facto standard.) A lot has changed in the 5+ years since then. Also, much software is written for Linux, whose dynamic linker has gone through a succession of quirks over time. Should we try to track the Linux hack of the week? Maybe, maybe not. It's a matter of opinion. When you are actually responsible for maintaining the dynamic linker, you get very cautious about changing its basic algorithms. There are ports that rely on all sorts of quirks, and they're not always compatible with each other. I chose the path of trying to stick to the standards, but that's not the only reasonable approach. John -- John Polstra John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message