What to do about rcmdsh(3) ?

[Eitan Adler]

I'm new at this. How does one do that?

On Tuesday, 3 July 2018, John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 7/2/18 8:30 PM, Cy Schubert wrote:
> > In message <CAF6rxgmJZyivZtQDKnUa12DJ5PqWVp40wOQg5Wt8zJWeuUUJYg at mail.gma
> > il.com>
> > , Eitan Adler writes:
> >> On 26 June 2018 at 23:45, O'Connor, Daniel <darius at dons.net.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 27 Jun 2018, at 13:01, Eitan Adler <lists at eitanadler.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 24 June 2018 at 05:14, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 03:32:13AM -0700, Eitan Adler wrote:
> >>>>>> Now that the rcmds are removed from base, it opens a question about
> >>>>>> what to do with rcmdsh(3).
> >>>>>> This is documented as
> >>>>>>     rcmdsh ??? return a stream to a remote command without superuser
> >>>>>> And is implemented as a rather simple wrapper of getaddrinfo and
> exec.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This isn't something I'd imagine we'd add to libc now-a-days and is
> >>>>>> currently broken by default (due to defaulting to _PATH_RSH)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm not sure there is much value in keeping this function around. I
> >>>>>> did a rather naive search for uses of this function in ports and
> >>>>>> couldn't find any. I'm preparing a more comprehensive patch for an
> >>>>>> exp-run.
> >>>>> There is a huge value in keeping ABI compatibility.  The symbol must
> be k
> >> ept.
> >>>>> You may remove default version for the symbol if you are so inclined.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm new at this. How does one do that?
>
> >
> > If you wanted to retire the symbol as suggested
> by kib@ that would also be fine and would prevent new applications from
> using it going forward (but you don't get to remove the source from libc).


 Sounds like a plan. I'm new at this. How does one do that?


-- 
Sent from my Turing Machine