From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/14409 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Removing glibc from the musl .2 ABI Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 11:11:07 -0400 Message-ID: <20190717151107.GL1506@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20190717033735.GJ1506@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <2d36174f-ae85-bcd2-1c71-10f50513b1a6@adelielinux.org> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="1482"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-14425-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Jul 17 17:11:23 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hnlaU-0000HE-U8 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 17:11:23 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 12010 invoked by uid 550); 17 Jul 2019 15:11:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 11990 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2019 15:11:19 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2d36174f-ae85-bcd2-1c71-10f50513b1a6@adelielinux.org> Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:14409 Archived-At: On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 08:13:44AM -0500, A. Wilcox wrote: > On 07/16/19 22:37, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:58:38PM -0500, A. Wilcox wrote: > >> (Full disclosure: I am the principal author of gcompat.) > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Now that gcompat has matured, I was wondering if perhaps musl should > >> consider dropping the glibc ABI guarantees when the "2 ABI" lands. > >> > >> This would make the LFS64 symbol mess completely moot. > > > > This is separate from the .2 ABI topic, but what would you think about > > removing glibc ABI-compat from the current .1 ABI and replacing it > > with enhanced gcompat? I was thinking ldso could load libgcompat > > instead of returning a reference to itself for DT_NEEDED referencing > > libc.so.6, and we could move all ABI-compat symbols into gcompat. > > > > The reason I bring it up is that ripping out the LFS64 > > unwantedly-linkable stuff while keeping it as ABI-only is looking like > > more of a pain than I expected. > > We would be more than happy to work with you on that. > > Would gcompat then become a runtime requirement for glibc apps on musl? > What would musl do if gcompat isn't installed on a system? It would just be a failed DT_NEEDED. > What about > things like libm and libdl, which I've seen some apps force DT_NEEDED > anyway when built against musl? These could still be ignored (mapped to internal libc) since any program using them would also necessarily be using libc.so.6. > Just trying to make sure the community has a clear view of what this > looks like before we jump in. Yes. This isn't a request to jump in, just looking at feasability and whether there'd be interest from your side. Being that ABI-compat doesn't actually work very well without gcompat right now, though, I think it might make sense. I'll continue to look at whether there are other options, possibly just transitional, that might be good too. Rich