On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Ray Kohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 8 02:45:04 2002 > : > Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 00:39:35 -0700 (MST) > : > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > : > Subject: Re: [PATCH] note the __sF change in src/UPDATING > : > From: "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > : > > : > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > : > Ray Kohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : > : Hear hear, I agree. There's no need to expose what ought to be > : > : "private" data to the world, especially when we can get the additional > : > : benefit here of letting us play with the implementation. > : > > : > -current already does this. The problem is that we're trying to shoot > : > the bad access in the head, and that is what is screwing people. So > : > the problem isn't that we're trying to export private data to the > : > world. Quite the contrary, we're trying to eliminate it and having > : > growing pains. > : > : Exactly. That's why I'm arguing against putting __sF back (or > : adopting equally crapulent measures). Growing pains are a necessary evil. > : (I also agree that we probably ought to staticize any other things of > : this nature while we're at it and get the pain over with.) > > Yes, but this is too painful. If we were going to do this, the time > for the pain was 6-9 months ago, not just before the release.
All the ports are going to be rebuilt for the release anyways, so this doesn't affect fresh installs, correct? It is only a problem when mixing older 4.x and 5.0 libraries/binaries with __sF-free libc (if I understand things correctly). This is 5.0; it is a major release and there will be some flies in the ointment. I say bite the bullet now -- don't wait. If we want to provide an optional compatability hack to libc so that folks can compile it with __sF support, then I think that is better than leaving __sF in the release, perhaps with a mktemp(3)-like warning if possible (?). -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
