Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:31:27 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Tijl Coosemans <tijl@coosemans.org>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: libutil in Debian Message-ID: <CAGE5yCratkaVjAsyJZz=zPKxAWpCnFyjjULWeUU_MSxN-_yTJA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <D99F95A3-81D2-47D5-8D4F-D3CCBEB251EE@bsdimp.com> References: <CAOfDtXN2fWQAyGNb_ifH9y=zHO%2BGGnSdWnD8C6BzWDTU_7rWFQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130709113553.GP67810@FreeBSD.org> <CAOfDtXOTqzF9=s%2BUv6%2BMoAu0nrmyGrxJz4xaSJYEfDzRvrKx8g@mail.gmail.com> <20130709165939.GP91021@kib.kiev.ua> <0657575A-BF3A-486F-9582-C01E0FD97E38@bsdimp.com> <51DC4712.20707@coosemans.org> <CAGE5yCpD7WxW6vFtUggYQ%2BBayi1p7fxzq41%2Ba6RCJagqPHV=Fw@mail.gmail.com> <6E057FD0-9054-44CD-A806-3AFD8A7196CC@bsdimp.com> <CAGE5yCqAFqOEs_93KgojsgkOO%2B3LVTrhX6%2BRg_BS9OLMxbcfMA@mail.gmail.com> <D99F95A3-81D2-47D5-8D4F-D3CCBEB251EE@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 1:10 PM, Peter Wemm wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >>> On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: >> [..] >>>> While we could change the DT_SONAME, I don't see a way around "-lutil" >>>> without a lot of pain on our end. >>> >>> We would continue to install libutil.*, so that solves all these problems. We'd just provide a compatibility thing that allows one to link with -lbsduitl also. >> >> No, it'd have to be the other way around I think. We *need* -lutil to >> work forever. It was hard enough getting people to look in there in >> the first place and now there's a ton of released tarballs with it >> baked in. It's been hard enough to get people to fix freebsd-1* vs >> freebsd-1.* in autoconf. >> >> The DT_SONAME would solve a runtime ld-elf.so.1 compatability problem >> if glibc happens to name its libutil.so.N the same as ours. However I >> don't remember glibc using the same numbering conventions as us (they >> seem to like major.minor.micro while we have major only.. if I recall >> correctly) so even that shouldn't be an issue. > > I'm not proposing we change what we're doing today, apart from adding a new name. Create a symlink from libbsdutil.so -> libutil.so and libbsdutil.a -> libutil.a and change nothing else, including keeping -lutil? I'm not entirely sure what that achieves, but it is harmless as far as I can see and creates no run-time ABI issues. -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV UTF-8: So you can \342\200\231 .. for when a ' just won't do
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGE5yCratkaVjAsyJZz=zPKxAWpCnFyjjULWeUU_MSxN-_yTJA>