> On Nov 6, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Keith Wesolowski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 08:15:24AM -0800, Garrett D'Amore via > illumos-developer wrote: > >> Yes, all those are gone from illumos-core. :-) exec/aout is what I meant >> when I said a.out. :-) > > This is the illumos mailing list, not illumos-core.
Fair enough. That doesn’t mean we can never mention or discuss other repos or consolidations or distros here. > >>> This might be less true, some folks have claimed that there are parts >>> of libucb that function somewhat usefully as a "linux compat" -- I >>> think related to file locking? (though also, the implementation is >>> apparently entirely wrong…) >> >> There is *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* you want to use in that library. If there are >> symbols there that are needed for Linux compat, then we should make them >> exist in libc. The libucb library is one giant crime scene; I consider >> linking against it nothing but a bug generator. > > There may be nothing I personally want to use, but the fact of the > matter is that a lot of code out there calls flock() and the only > implementation of that on illumos is in libucb. Yes, it's a bad > implementation. Yes, it should not be used. Yes, it would be nice if > that were implemented in libc instead. It isn't. And until it not only > is but has been for 10 or 15 years, torching this library is the wrong > thing to do. At minimum, it needs to remain as a filter on libc once > all the functionality is there. Well, if flock is in libucb and not in libc, we need to fix that. And yes, if this is the reason that people use libucb.so, then we have to keep it around (and ideally as a filter against libc, as you mention.) > >> Anyway, I’ve punted that out of illumos-core, and into its own >> consolidation/repo, for distros that feel that they need to facilitate >> continued broken usage. > > That's not really helpful, especially once we convert it to a filter on > libc. While it's fine if you want illumos-core to be a million tiny > repos, that's certainly not the consensus vision for illumos. > libucb.so.1 and the Committed interfaces it provides are part of the > operating system. In ability to achieve consensus on almost anything on illumos-gate is *why* I forked. So I could experiment without upsetting Keith Wesolowski. Chill, dude. - Garrett ------------------------------------------- illumos-discuss Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182180/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182180/21175430-2e6923be Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175430&id_secret=21175430-6a77cda4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
