Hi! On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:37:21 +0200, Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org> wrote: > Thomas Schwinge, le Tue 25 Oct 2011 00:31:43 +0200, a écrit : > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:44:27 +0200, Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org> wrote: > > > Thomas Schwinge, le Fri 21 Oct 2011 10:27:03 +0200, a écrit : > > > > > __dir_unlink@Base 2.11 > > > > > __exec_exec@Base 2.11 > > > > > + __exec_exec_file_name@Base 2.13-21+ts.0 > > > > > > Ah, do your changes add some RPCs? Then that part is expected. The > > > symbols stuff is precisely meant to catch such changes. > > > > (Does dh_makeshlibs run dpkg-gensymbols with -c2? Otherwise it wouldn't > > stop due to this, as I understand its documentation?) > > I don't think it does. Hmm, should it do so? Or are you manually watching the glibc build process for such changes, or how does this work? (Or how should it work?) > > I don't really like > > libmachuser and libhurduser. All code using these should instead > > explicitly create these as needed and link against its own copies. > > Well, that'd be a tedious thing to integrate in all applications which > we port to native interfaces of the Hurd. Well, I don't think so. As you're saying, it only concerns packages using native interface (which are few), and integrating MIG into their build process should be (made) easy. > > > > Now, the question is whether the RPC user stubs should get Debian symbol > > > > versioning at all, or if they're simply a best-effort thing? > > > > > > Making them a best-effort would mean that some programs using them would > > > get broken when they are removed. We don't really want that :) > > > > Then we really have to revert dd48e23f43730038df4bb191e7acc47a4ab73c69? > > Why? (To restore the symbols.) > > But I really hope (and expect) that nobody has been using these functions > > anymore (with their bogus names), for years already. > > Then that's fine. ... but only guessing. (Even if I strongly do believe so.) > > Should we perhaps > > add something like ``ENOSYS'' stubs to Debian glibc, weak aliases for all > > the removed functions? (This would be easy enough, I think.) MIG_BAD_ID is the code I was thinking of. > > Debian is a binary distribution. We can check, but I doubt any Debian > binary package uses these symbols, so we can simply drop them entirely. ... but only guessing. (Even if I strongly do believe so.) But good enough for my taste. But what to do with the problem that on some hosts (with older gnumach-dev package, as yours), the xxx_cpu_something RPCs will re-appear? Should we explicitly set versioned build-depends (lower and upper bound) for gnumach-dev and hurd-dev when such changes have been done, to force the specific versions? Grüße, Thomas
Attachment:
pgp50AJOZpq7Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature