Revert "rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn"

This reverts commit 95878586ec7611791f4001a4ee17abf943fae3c1.

1 files changed, 109 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/versioning.mdwn b/open_issues/versioning.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..18fb588e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/open_issues/versioning.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2012, 2013, 2014 Free Software Foundation,
+Inc."]]
+
+[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
+id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
+document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
+any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
+Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
+is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
+License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
+
+Things to consider regarding *versioning*.
+
+The provider and user of any interface need to agree about how to interpret the
+data being exchanged.  Internal-only interfaces can be changed easily, because
+you can change the provider and user at the same time.  Interfaces that are
+exposed externally require more attention, for obvious reasons.  To *change*
+interfaces means to either remove, or add, or modify an existing interface.
+Modify basically means to remove and then re-add a variant, re-using the former
+name/identifier.
+
+[[!toc]]
+
+
+# [[RPC]]s
+
+## [[microkernel/mach/message/msgh_id]]
+
+
+# Shared Libraries
+
+  * [[!wikipedia soname]]
+  * ELF symbol versioning
+  * [[!wikipedia "GNU Libtool"]]
+
+
+## Hurd
+
+Transition to "normal" ELF symbol versioning/libtool?
+
+For all libraries, the SONAME is currently set to *0.3*.  [[!message-id
+desc="Not changed" "87ob7cxbu6.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net"]] when doing the
+[[Hurd 0.5 release|news/2013-09-27]].
+
+
+## glibc
+
+Bump the glibc SONAME to some point, or can do everything with symbol
+versioning?
+
+There are some comments in the sources, for example `hurd/geteuids.c`: `XXX
+Remove this alias when we bump the libc soname.`
+
+
+### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-12-14
+
+[[!tag open_issue_glibc open_issue_libpthread]]
+
+In context of [[packaging_libpthread]]/[[libpthread]].
+
+    <pinotree> once libc is switched internally from cthreads to pthreads (thus
+      breaking its BC), may be worth cleanup the hurd-specific exported symbols
+    <tschwinge> pinotree: Yes.  If you already have ideas about what to clean
+      up, feel free to add a new page or a section on open_issues/glibc.
+    <pochu> we're gonna break backwards compatibility in glibc on hurd? that
+      could be the perfect moment to fix the /dev/fd/N problem without adding
+      new RPCs, though we'd probably have to break backwards-compatibility in
+      the exec server IIRC...
+
+[[glibc#execve_relative_paths]].
+
+
+### `time_t` -- Unix Epoch vs. 2038
+
+#### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-12-12
+
+    <azeem> because it gets discussed in #debian-devel for the Linux i386
+      architecture right now: what's the deal with hurd-i386 and the 32bit
+      epoch overflow in 2038?
+    <braunr> what do you mean ?
+    <azeem> braunr: http://lwn.net/Articles/563285/
+    <braunr> ok but what do you mean ?
+    <braunr> i don't think there is anything special with the hurd about that
+    <azeem> well, time_t is 64bit on amd64 AIUI
+    <braunr> it's a signed long
+    <azeem> so maybe the Hurd guys were clever from the start
+    <azeem> k, k
+    <braunr> our big advantage is that we can afford to break things a little
+      without too much trouble
+    <braunr> in a system at work, we use unsigned 32-bit words
+    <braunr> which overflows in 2106
+    <braunr> and we already include funny comments that predict our successors,
+      if any, will probably fail to deal with the problem until short before
+      the overflow :>
+    <azeem> luckily, no nuclear reactors are running the Hurd sofar
+    <braunr> i wonder how the problem will be dealt with though
+    <braunr> ah, openbsd decided to break their abi
+    <azeem> yeah
+    <braunr> that's probably the simplest solution
+    <azeem> "just recompile"
+    <braunr> and they can afford it too
+    <azeem> yeah
+    <braunr> good to see people actually worry about it
+    <azeem> I guess people are getting worried about where Linux embedded is
+      being put into
+    <braunr> they're right about that
+    <azeem> "Please, don't fix the 2038 year issue. I also want to have some
+      job security :)"
+    <braunr> haha