Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 19:59:39 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org> Cc: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libutil in Debian Message-ID: <20130709165939.GP91021@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <CAOfDtXOTqzF9=s%2BUv6%2BMoAu0nrmyGrxJz4xaSJYEfDzRvrKx8g@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAOfDtXN2fWQAyGNb_ifH9y=zHO%2BGGnSdWnD8C6BzWDTU_7rWFQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130709113553.GP67810@FreeBSD.org> <CAOfDtXOTqzF9=s%2BUv6%2BMoAu0nrmyGrxJz4xaSJYEfDzRvrKx8g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--SE5owWcayr8rNfUr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 05:05:00PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > Hi Gleb, >=20 > 2013/7/9 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>: > > 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. >=20 > Thanks for pointing this out. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Please take it as a compliment rather than as offence :-) >=20 > > Also, FreeBSD is just one of the BSD descendants, and all of them share > > the libutil. >=20 > So, I take it that the change I'm proposing could have disruptive effects. >=20 > 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. >=20 > However I'm clearly biased so I'd rather not insist on this. I leave > it for you to judge. Renaming the libutil would break the ABI of the base system. If you are introducing new interfaces to the other systems, you can use a library name you find suitable. But for the library which is linked with significant number of existing binaries, rename is not an easy option. --SE5owWcayr8rNfUr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (FreeBSD) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR3EF6AAoJEJDCuSvBvK1BegQP/jKmvwDByVO8g0Zd9Hz5D86J 9lJ+cIGZRwwXU6N8welSUD5M2YOt5kkeGDBdgXKTrrkgKkxqCyacdRCvfYQpi41H +9gCsKVTVxUrudZxALxe6eEmYnAkgXyrRiXiUTNquQK5V1QHxU2j0YEg2Y247NWM 1fGn1rQa6EEZV++2o3bNf5hJN377elsr6aoU4mw2l+yczxCmdhn0cecUp9kfj4Yc tphL4Ru16x+trVQpuh9/jmjKYo4IlaKHszblggXyGYxdp6pl9I/2WWWEckKnluV5 C+uZ4B3lJZX+Pv1jVVZ9sHRpaKXSh4WGoiJbv/3m2Y3uHXaYgAZuSI8FraCb2fWW sskKaHSTPuHOlQvCgIT+9PE6iACHknJeNikCNunq4LyqBzjy+ytsmR4Pw3Zv24Sb J/7EblMNwb5yl3iu2YYahZirSampUyZGRYZsZ679d8Aaq9E6SkFIyDzej8sms0yJ tI0W3ZE59rxTfREYja4x23zCsjPM11tXmREOCu4NqcpNS9OdHttS59E8HHEuMqqR 3OxQle3sA6RCKbHlbvQ8d+fPaZkAYo0g0oT/O7BpNkGozDp1ieCYt009ICwnF5SG rJEcS3Afz2a+ViEMvVlMuooQLExWqLQmTOY28nCEGzOci0Ny6pSIJCzTyFjVIsrp ZwMr9YJpWDylFoGy89Kl =PkAM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SE5owWcayr8rNfUr--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130709165939.GP91021>