From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 17404 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2022 12:58:13 -0000 Received: from second.openwall.net (193.110.157.125) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 30 Sep 2022 12:58:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 30498 invoked by uid 550); 30 Sep 2022 12:58:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 30460 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2022 12:58:08 -0000 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 08:57:55 -0400 From: Rich Felker To: Markus Wichmann Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <20220930125754.GB29905@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20220926010339.GA9709@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20220926220449.GE9709@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20220927122005.GG9709@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20220927190357.GH9709@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20220927190853.GI9709@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20220929230707.GA29905@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20220930024447.GC2645@voyager> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220930024447.GC2645@voyager> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [musl] 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