Thomas Schwinge, le Tue 25 Oct 2011 00:31:43 +0200, a écrit : > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:44:27 +0200, Samuel Thibault <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thomas Schwinge, le Fri 21 Oct 2011 10:27:03 +0200, a écrit : > > > > > If building with EGLIBC_PASSES=libc (more specifically, without xen) > > > > > > > > I don't use EGLIBC_PASSES, but it shouldn't matter either. > > > > > > During development, you build all flavors all the time? > > > > No, I just run "make lib" in build/hurd-i386-libc/ > > After first building it completely once, I guess?
Yes. > And then you manually test in-tree or copy the various .so files, > etc.? I test in-tree. > > > > __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. > But, that's exactly what I meant with ``the RPC user stubs [in glibc] > [...] are simply a best-effort thing'' -- their content isn't defined by > the glibc source package that is being built, but instead by Hurd RPC > definition files that are already installed. Ah, yes. > 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. > Perhaps you're still having an older gnumach-dev package installed on > your hosts? (Again, ``RPC user stubs best effort'' issue...) Most probably. > > > 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? > 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. > Should we perhaps > add something like ``ENOSYS'' stubs to Debian glibc, weak aliases for all > the removed functions? 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. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
