James Carlson wrote:
>
>
>> Since ISC does not guarantee that these
>> interfaces will not change in incompatible ways we do not want to make
>> that guarantee.
>>
>
> Are there any interfaces for which they make that guarantee? If there
> aren't any, then I suspect that the wrong test is being applied.
>
Let me recheck and get back to you.
> Where in the documentation is it made clear that these things are
> effectively unusable?
>
We can add a warning/note to the man pages of the two newly documented
interfaces.
>
>>> Does Volatile really match with the upstream behavior and the downstream
>>> usage? Or is it just a replay of "external?"
>>>
>>>
>> I am not aware of any ISC interface classification scheme, so how was it
>> figured out which interfaces ISC will not change. In fact ISC has
>> changed some interfaces in incompatible ways and for this update we have
>> to implement workarounds to provide backward compatibility and we do not
>> want to keep doing that.
>>
>
> I think that's a mistake.
>
> There's no free lunch here. Either someone (ISC or OpenSolaris)
> provides compatibility, or applications will simply break. As the
> latter is clearly an unacceptable result, it means that future projects
> should be told by the ARC that they must not use this software. If
> that's the case, then why bother integrating at all?
>
> Does ISC really break documented interfaces in this way? Do you have
> specifics to share?
>
Very recently a new member was added to a commonly accessed structure
which would have required a recompile. We caught it early enough but
that may not be always the case.
>
>> Your assumption about volatile being a replay
>> on external is correct.
>>
>
> In that case, this is an error.
>
Rao.
