Le Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 06:55:09PM +0100, Mark Kettenis a écrit : > > Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:39:36 +0100 > > From: Denis Fondras <open...@ledeuns.net> > > > > Le Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 06:23:41PM +0100, Mark Kettenis a écrit : > > > > > This diff renames SIMPLEQ_* to STAILQ_* in /usr/src/sys/sys to unify > > > > > with FreeBSD and Linux. > > > > > > > > > > I added aliases at the end of queue.h to avoid breaking base too > > > > > much. they will > > > > > be removed as soon as diff 2,3,4,5,6,7 are commited. > > > > > > > > We'll need to run a ports bulk build without the aliases. (I can > > > > do that.) There will be some breakage. > > > > > > NetBSD and Solaris both provide SIMPLEQ_* and STAILQ_*. I'm not sure > > > removing one in favour of the other is helpful. > > > > > > > The "problem" is OpenBSD does not provide STAILQ_*. This difference forces > > OpenBSD porters to patch linux/freebsd-centered programs. > > NetBSD added STAILQ_* following FreeBSD. > > Right. But ports written for OpenBSD/NetBSD/Solaris might use > SIMPLEQ_*. My point is that removing one in favour of the other is > going to break stuff. So maybe we should provide both like NetBSD and > Solaris do? > > Which raises the question why STAILQ_* is better than SIMPLEQ_*? And > at which point I'd argue against the churn of doing > s/SIMPLEQ_*/STAILQ_*/ in base.
>From the discussion that happened in april (https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=158765582816198&w=2) with Todd C. Miller, I understood we had some kind of consensus to s/SIMPLEQ_*/STAILQ_*/. I might have gone too far with the numerous diffs and embedding unrelated changes.
