libutil in Debian

[Peter Wemm]

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 9, 2013, at 1:10 PM, Peter Wemm wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Peter Wemm wrote:
>> [..]
>>>> While we could change the DT_SONAME, I don't see a way around "-lutil"
>>>> without a lot of pain on our end.
>>>
>>> We would continue to install libutil.*, so that solves all these problems. We'd just provide a compatibility thing that allows one to link with -lbsduitl also.
>>
>> No, it'd have to be the other way around I think. We *need* -lutil to
>> work forever.  It was hard enough getting people to look in there in
>> the first place and now there's a ton of released tarballs with it
>> baked in.  It's been hard enough to get people to fix freebsd-1* vs
>> freebsd-1.* in autoconf.
>>
>> The DT_SONAME would solve a runtime ld-elf.so.1 compatability problem
>> if glibc happens to name its libutil.so.N the same as ours.  However I
>> don't remember glibc using the same numbering conventions as us (they
>> seem to like major.minor.micro while we have major only.. if I recall
>> correctly) so even that shouldn't be an issue.
>
> I'm not proposing we change what we're doing today, apart from adding a new name.

Create a symlink from libbsdutil.so -> libutil.so and libbsdutil.a ->
libutil.a and change nothing else, including keeping -lutil?  I'm not
entirely sure what that achieves, but it is harmless as far as I can
see and creates no run-time ABI issues.

-- 
Peter Wemm - peter at wemm.org; peter at FreeBSD.org; peter at yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV
UTF-8: So you can \342\200\231 .. for when a ' just won't do