diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'open_issues/versioning.mdwn')
| -rw-r--r-- | open_issues/versioning.mdwn | 112 |
1 files changed, 112 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/open_issues/versioning.mdwn b/open_issues/versioning.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 00000000..1987b6ca --- /dev/null +++ b/open_issues/versioning.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,112 @@ +[[!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... + <tschwinge> pochu: Oh, I have to re-read that discussion, but thanks for + reminding! + +[[!GNU_Savannah_bug 28934]], [[user/pochu]], [[!message-id +"4BFA500A.7030502@gmail.com"]]. + + +### `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 |