[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190128130813.GC30123@example.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 14:08:13 +0100
From: u-uy74@...ey.se
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: (OT?) Re: Symbol versioning approximation trips on compat
symbols
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 07:34:25AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * u-uy:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 11:04:24PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> >> For what it's worth, compat symbols would have let us remove symbols
> >> that shouldn't have been put in musl, such as lchmod (which confuses
> >> broken apps which wrongly expect that, if it exists, it should work)
> >
> > For what my integrator perspective is worth, exposing brokenness instead
> > of catering for it is a Good Thing.
> So far, no one has presented a compelling way how to test for symbol
> versioning support.
My comment apparently fell out of context. Sorry for that.
It was about applications who make undue assumptions (and as a consequence
use misdirected tests). Exposing the failures of those assumptions is
vital to be able to make it better.
If there is a feature which is hard or impossible to test for, like
symbol versioning, it means that the applications may _have_ to rely on
an explicit build flag telling whether to use it.
IOW it is for the most part not a technical problem but rather a problem
of awareness among application developers.
Rune
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
