cvs commit: src/include string.h src/lib/libc/string Makefile.inc memchr.3 memrchr.c src/sys/sys param.h

[Maxim Sobolev]

Xin LI wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> | Xin LI wrote:
> |> delphij     2008-05-27 20:04:27 UTC
> |>
> |>   FreeBSD src repository
> |>
> |>   Modified files:        (Branch: RELENG_6)
> |>     include              string.h     lib/libc/string
> |> Makefile.inc memchr.3     sys/sys              param.h   Added
> |> files:           (Branch: RELENG_6)
> |>     lib/libc/string      memrchr.c   Log:
> |>   MFC: Add memrchr(3).
> |
> | I think this is not very good idea to MFC that into stable releases 6.x
> | and 7.x. The reason is that configure scripts for some packages might
> | detect up this API and enable it. Which means that some binary-only
> | packages build for say 6.4 won't work on 6.3 and down. AFAIK, both
> | forward and backward compatibility is required (or at least desired?)
> | for stable branches.
> |
> | While it's "nice-to-have" feature, I see no pressing need to MFC this
> | interface.
> 
> I don't think so, perhaps I am wrong, but do we really want absolutely
> no *new* features on -STABLE branches?  I think this case is different
> from ctype(3) fix which is widely used API and a change of existing
> interface by adding new dependency to a symbol that is not exist in the
> older FreeBSD releases.  It will really scare me away from any new
> features if we can not add an new interface in RELENG_* trees even if
> they have no outside dependencies, if that's the policy of ABI
> compatibility guidelines then I'd be happy to revert these MFC's, but
> having something can only run on -CURRENT does not sound like a good
> idea, and maintaining in-tree alternative patches for different branches
> for such things is really painful and will likely reduce the lifespan of
> given -STABLE branches, is these our goal and should be kept in mind
> when maintaining code in RELENG_* branches?

Well, as I said it might not be something strictly required, but why not 
be nice to ISVs and users? Ability to run binaries compiled on 6.4 on 
previous 6.x releases is really important in many situations. The less 
gratuitous breakage we introduce the better. And yes, I know that 
historically we as a projects have had a very bad track record in this 
area. That's probably one of the reasons why big software vendors 
(Oracle, Sun etc) are very reluctant to provide native binary packages 
for FreeBSD.

In this particular case the memrchr() is not something mandated by the 
C90 and/or POSIX/SUS. It's glibc extension. Any software that is 
portable should be able to live without it. IMHO, there is very little 
or no gain in having it MFCed.

-Maxim