Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 08:57:55 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Revisiting LFS64 removal On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 04:44:47AM +0200, Markus Wichmann wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 07:07:08PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > As an alternative, maybe we should consider leaving these but only > > under explict _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE rather than implicitly via > > _GNU_SOURCE for at least one release cycle. This would allow makeshift > > fixing of any builds that break by just adding -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE > > until a proper fix can be applied. > > > > Any preference here? > > > > Rich > > Given that nothing lasts as long as a temporary measure, I'd say it is That's not a given for musl, quite the opposite. I would expect it to last at most a release cycle, possibly even to disappear before then if distros backport the changes to their development branches early and find and fix everything. > better to rip the band-aid off in one go rather than two. Besides, any > breakage ought to be able to be dealt with by a simple replacement, > right? It's a simple fix, but the question is how many such simple fixes a distro might need to make in their packages, and that I don't know. If they have a trivial mechanical fix of "add something to CFLAGS" they can do at first, that lets them build a list of affected packages while quickly getting them all building again, then work out the right fixes one at a time according to usual triage rather than being swamped with these taking priority over issues with more depth. Rich
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.