[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 07:34:25 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: u-uy74@...ey.se
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Symbol versioning approximation trips on compat symbols
* u-uy:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 11:04:24PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
>> For what it's worth, compat symbols would have let us remove symbols
>> that shouldn't have been put in musl, such as lchmod (which confuses
>> broken apps which wrongly expect that, if it exists, it should work)
>
> For what my integrator perspective is worth, exposing brokenness instead
> of catering for it is a Good Thing.
>
> Feature detection is one of the typical areas being messed up, in numerous
> softwares.
>
> Thanks musl for exposing the pitfalls and forcing upstreams think better.
As I explained, precisely that is not the case because the main musl
user, Alpine Linux, builds musl with a broken toolchain that is not
properly targeted to musl's features. I think the official musl
instructions have the same result.
So far, no one has presented a compelling way how to test for symbol
versioning support.
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
