Debian Bug report logs - #534398
RFP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems

Package: wnpp; Maintainer for wnpp is wnpp@debian.org;

Reported by: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:06:01 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:06:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to debian-devel@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:06:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:02:26 +1000
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>

* Package name    : libposix
  Version         : 0
  Upstream Author : Henrique Almeida <hdante@gmail.com>
* URL             : http://libposix.sourceforge.net/
* License         : See below
  Programming Lang: C
  Description     : unifed implementation of core functionality of all
                    Unix systems

Licence

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:

  * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

  * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS
IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:15:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:15:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org>
To: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>, 534398@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:11:20 +0200
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>
> 
> * Package name    : libposix

I still have doubts that this package is undistributable with this name,
because of POSIX trademark (but DFSG allow us to change the package name).

Note: It is not the case of posix-thread, where posix is used as
attribute.

ciao
	cate




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:24:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:24:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
To: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>, 534398@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:19:48 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 09:02 +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>
> 
> * Package name    : libposix
>   Version         : 0
>   Upstream Author : Henrique Almeida <hdante@gmail.com>
> * URL             : http://libposix.sourceforge.net/
> * License         : See below
>   Programming Lang: C
>   Description     : unifed implementation of core functionality of all
>                     Unix systems

Why?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
If at first you don't succeed, you're doing about average.
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:21:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:21:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #20 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
To: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>, 534398@bugs.debian.org
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:03:41 +0100
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:02:26AM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>

> * Package name    : libposix

Why?

This is a subset of the interfaces provided by glibc, which must be present
on all systems.  So it would be stupid for any package in Debian to link
against libposix instead of just using libc.  Why do we want a library in
Debian that no packages should depend on?

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:30:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:30:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #25 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>
To: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>, 534398@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:28:24 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:03:41AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:02:26AM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> > * Package name    : libposix
> 
> Why?
> 
> This is a subset of the interfaces provided by glibc, which must be present
> on all systems.  So it would be stupid for any package in Debian to link
> against libposix instead of just using libc.  Why do we want a library in
> Debian that no packages should depend on?

Just see it as dash vs. bash. Once libposix reaches maturity, I will certainly
consider linking applications I wrote myself against libposix. Applications
linked against it will probably use less memory and cannot inadvertently use
glibc extensions. This will make it easier to port those applications, and will
also make it easier to run things on embedded platforms.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
      Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:21:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:21:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #30 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@gmail.com>
To: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>, 534398@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:17:14 -0400
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 6:28 AM, Guus Sliepen<guus@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:03:41AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:02:26AM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
>> > * Package name    : libposix
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> This is a subset of the interfaces provided by glibc, which must be present
>> on all systems.  So it would be stupid for any package in Debian to link
>> against libposix instead of just using libc.  Why do we want a library in
>> Debian that no packages should depend on?
>
> Just see it as dash vs. bash. Once libposix reaches maturity, I will certainly
> consider linking applications I wrote myself against libposix. Applications
> linked against it will probably use less memory and cannot inadvertently use
> glibc extensions. This will make it easier to port those applications, and will
> also make it easier to run things on embedded platforms.

Is libposix complete enough to link against for real programs yet? If
not, why should it be included at this time?
Moreover, can libposix and libc coexist in the same address space? If
not, all of debian's existing libraries will be incompatible with it.
It seems like the sort of thing that you might want to build an entire
distro against, or a custom/development build against, but not just
some programs in a distro...




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:36:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:36:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #35 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>
To: Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@gmail.com>
Cc: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>, 534398@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:34:32 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:17:14AM -0400, Bryan Donlan wrote:

> Is libposix complete enough to link against for real programs yet? If
> not, why should it be included at this time?

I agree that if the only thing that works at this moment is the simplest "Hello
world" program, that it should not be packaged yet.

> Moreover, can libposix and libc coexist in the same address space?

What address space are you talking about? There is also dietlibc and uClibc,
who can coexist with glibc. But applications can only link against one of them
at the time of course.

> If not, all of debian's existing libraries will be incompatible with it.
> It seems like the sort of thing that you might want to build an entire
> distro against, or a custom/development build against, but not just
> some programs in a distro...

Having a glibc replacement for just a few programs is not an argument in itself
for not including this package. Perhaps I want to develop a program that needs
to run in an embedded environment that I want to test? Then I'd like to have a
libposix-dev package that I can use to build my own software with.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
      Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:45:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Nico Golde <nion@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:45:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #40 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Nico Golde <nion@debian.org>
To: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>, 534398@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:39:44 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi,
* Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org> [2009-06-24 08:21]:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>
> 
> * Package name    : libposix
>   Version         : 0
>   Upstream Author : Henrique Almeida <hdante@gmail.com>
> * URL             : http://libposix.sourceforge.net/
> * License         : See below
>   Programming Lang: C
>   Description     : unifed implementation of core functionality of all
>                     Unix systems
> 
[...] 
Given the current state of this project I doubt there is 
anything worth packaging at this point, there is hardly any 
functionality.

Cheers
Nico
-- 
Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de - nion@jabber.ccc.de - GPG: 0xA0A0AAAA
For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted.
[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:00:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:00:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #45 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@gmail.com>
To: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>, Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@gmail.com>, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>, 534398@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:55:41 -0400
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Guus Sliepen<guus@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:17:14AM -0400, Bryan Donlan wrote:
>
>> Is libposix complete enough to link against for real programs yet? If
>> not, why should it be included at this time?
>
> I agree that if the only thing that works at this moment is the simplest "Hello
> world" program, that it should not be packaged yet.
>
>> Moreover, can libposix and libc coexist in the same address space?
>
> What address space are you talking about? There is also dietlibc and uClibc,
> who can coexist with glibc. But applications can only link against one of them
> at the time of course.

I mean, if a program is using libposix, can it also link, for example,
libpng, which is built against the normal libc?
If libposix uses the brk() area for malloc this isn't possible, but if
it uses anonymous mmaps exclusively then it might be doable (of
course, one would need to be careful to free with the correct malloc
implementation).

>> If not, all of debian's existing libraries will be incompatible with it.
>> It seems like the sort of thing that you might want to build an entire
>> distro against, or a custom/development build against, but not just
>> some programs in a distro...
>
> Having a glibc replacement for just a few programs is not an argument in itself
> for not including this package. Perhaps I want to develop a program that needs
> to run in an embedded environment that I want to test? Then I'd like to have a
> libposix-dev package that I can use to build my own software with.

For embedded environments, one will generally want a cross-compiling
toolchain, not just a library. You can't use the libc headers in
/usr/include, or libc's crt*.o start routines, after all, and even
uclibc abandoned the approach of hacking a host toolchain into using
its libraries. And for an embedded environment, a lot of the time
you'll have a different architecture on the target than the host
anyway.

This is all moot if libposix is still too incomplete to be usable of course :)




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:00:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:00:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #50 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>
To: 534398@bugs.debian.org
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:56:35 -0400
Guus Sliepen writes:

>> Moreover, can libposix and libc coexist in the same address space?
>
> What address space are you talking about? There is also dietlibc and uClibc,
> who can coexist with glibc. But applications can only link against one of them
> at the time of course.

I suspect the concern here is dynamically linked libraries.

Suppose myapp is linked against libposix (for whatever reason).
Suppose libfoo.so is linked against glibc (for whatever different
reason).  Finally, suppose that myapp links against libfoo.so.  When
this happens, what breaks, how badly, and how obviously?

Michael Poole




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:45:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:45:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #55 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>
To: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>, Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@gmail.com>, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>, 534398@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:42:01 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org> (24/06/2009):
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:17:14AM -0400, Bryan Donlan wrote:
> 
> > Is libposix complete enough to link against for real programs yet? If
> > not, why should it be included at this time?
> 
> I agree that if the only thing that works at this moment is the simplest "Hello
> world" program, that it should not be packaged yet.

Looking at the latest news I could find on the website[1]:
| Multiplatform support for libposix
| 
| Posted by hdante on June 6, 2009
| 
| I'm happy to announce that libposix is able to run "Hello World" in
| three different platforms: linux x86, linux x86_64 and FreeBSD x86.

 1. http://libposix.sourceforge.net/

I guess you have your answer.

(Don't Cc me if you keep d-d@ in the loop, thanks already.)

Mraw,
KiBi.
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:18:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:18:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #60 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
To: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>, 534398@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:47:16 -0400
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:28:24PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> > This is a subset of the interfaces provided by glibc, which must be present
> > on all systems.  So it would be stupid for any package in Debian to link
> > against libposix instead of just using libc.  Why do we want a library in
> > Debian that no packages should depend on?

> Just see it as dash vs. bash.

I *don't* see it as this, because I can't see any way that libposix will
ever be useful to have used by other Debian packages.  dash is useful to
have as the *default* /bin/sh on Debian systems; libposix would not be
useful to have by default.

> Once libposix reaches maturity, I will certainly consider linking
> applications I wrote myself against libposix. Applications linked against
> it will probably use less memory

Why would they use less memory?

> and cannot inadvertently use glibc extensions.

So instead you get to reimplement all the extensions you need, in the name
of "portability"?

> and will also make it easier to run things on embedded platforms.

Why does this make anything easier?  If you're rebuilding your whole system
against libposix, you're not doing that in the archive, so packaging
libposix seems largely irrelevant to this; if you aren't rebuilding your
whole system against libposix, you get two libcs, so that's hardly a win for
embedded systems.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 03:34:32PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> > Moreover, can libposix and libc coexist in the same address space?

> What address space are you talking about? There is also dietlibc and
> uClibc, who can coexist with glibc.

uclibc doesn't appear to be packaged.

dietlibc is packaged - in a manner that appears to violate pretty much all
the principles of Policy 8.1 and shared library best practices in general.
(No distinguishing soname distinct from the .so used at build time, to allow
for ABI changes; one of the libs is installed executable (why? it's libdl,
ok, but is that actually used as the dynamic linker for dietlibc-linked
executables?); the libs are installed under /usr/lib/diet/lib, which seems
to imply use of rpath.)

I'm skeptical of the utility of such a level of coexistence.

> Having a glibc replacement for just a few programs is not an argument in itself
> for not including this package. Perhaps I want to develop a program that needs
> to run in an embedded environment that I want to test? Then I'd like to have a
> libposix-dev package that I can use to build my own software with.

If there are to be embedded environments that will use libposix, then that's
an argument for packaging it - but since these environments don't exist
today, it seems premature to me to put the package in Debian.  Are there any
use cases for this that are both non-theoretical and non-crackful?

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:27:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:27:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #65 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>
To: 534398@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:24:40 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:47:16PM -0400, Steve Langasek wrote:

> > Once libposix reaches maturity, I will certainly consider linking
> > applications I wrote myself against libposix. Applications linked against
> > it will probably use less memory
> 
> Why would they use less memory?

Since they don't link against a large library. Granted, that is only a benefit
if all running programs link against libposix instead of glibc.

> > and cannot inadvertently use glibc extensions.
> 
> So instead you get to reimplement all the extensions you need, in the name
> of "portability"?

Yes, if that is what it takes for my application to work on platforms that do
not have glibc.

> > and will also make it easier to run things on embedded platforms.
> 
> Why does this make anything easier?  If you're rebuilding your whole system
> against libposix, you're not doing that in the archive, so packaging
> libposix seems largely irrelevant to this; if you aren't rebuilding your
> whole system against libposix, you get two libcs, so that's hardly a win for
> embedded systems.

If I'm compiling I'd rather do it on a fast desktop with all my usual stuff
installed than on an embedded system.

> If there are to be embedded environments that will use libposix, then that's
> an argument for packaging it - but since these environments don't exist
> today, it seems premature to me to put the package in Debian.  Are there any
> use cases for this that are both non-theoretical and non-crackful?

Although I disagree with your other reasons for not including this library in Debian,
I agree that it shouldn't be packaged yet since it is quite unusable in this stage :)

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
      Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:39:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:39:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #70 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@gmail.com>
To: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>, 534398@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:33:44 -0400
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Guus Sliepen<guus@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:47:16PM -0400, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> > Once libposix reaches maturity, I will certainly consider linking
>> > applications I wrote myself against libposix. Applications linked against
>> > it will probably use less memory
>>
>> Why would they use less memory?
>
> Since they don't link against a large library. Granted, that is only a benefit
> if all running programs link against libposix instead of glibc.

What makes you think libposix will be smaller? It is currently very
incomplete; by the time it reaches a full implementation of POSIX, it
may well be the same size as libc.

>> > and will also make it easier to run things on embedded platforms.
>>
>> Why does this make anything easier?  If you're rebuilding your whole system
>> against libposix, you're not doing that in the archive, so packaging
>> libposix seems largely irrelevant to this; if you aren't rebuilding your
>> whole system against libposix, you get two libcs, so that's hardly a win for
>> embedded systems.
>
> If I'm compiling I'd rather do it on a fast desktop with all my usual stuff
> installed than on an embedded system.

Again, this is what a cross-compile toolchain is for (mandatory if
your embedded platform is anything other than your desktop arch!). You
could adapt the crosstool buildscripts that uclibc uses, for example.
If you just use debian's normal GCC, you're going to have a hell of a
time convincing it to not use libc's include files/statically-linked
startup objects/dynamic linker.




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:45:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@madism.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:45:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #75 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@madism.org>
To: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>, 534398@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:41:43 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:24:40AM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:47:16PM -0400, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 
> > > Once libposix reaches maturity, I will certainly consider linking
> > > applications I wrote myself against libposix. Applications linked against
> > > it will probably use less memory
> > 
> > Why would they use less memory?
> 
> Since they don't link against a large library.

Which is a ridiculous argument given what the S in .so means. As soon as
at least one always running program on your system uses glibc, you want
to only use glibc if you want to save memory. It's simple as that.


-- 
Intersec <http://www.intersec.com>
Pierre Habouzit <pierre.habouzit@intersec.com>
Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346
Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131
Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332
37 Rue Pierre Lhomme
92400 Courbevoie
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:57:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:57:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #80 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>
To: 534398@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:54:35 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:33:44PM -0400, Bryan Donlan wrote:

> >> Why would they use less memory?
> >
> > Since they don't link against a large library. Granted, that is only a benefit
> > if all running programs link against libposix instead of glibc.
> 
> What makes you think libposix will be smaller? It is currently very
> incomplete; by the time it reaches a full implementation of POSIX, it
> may well be the same size as libc.

Glibc implements much more than just POSIX, and it is not known for its
leanness, hence the existence of dietlibc, uClibc, etc.

> > If I'm compiling I'd rather do it on a fast desktop with all my usual stuff
> > installed than on an embedded system.
> 
> Again, this is what a cross-compile toolchain is for (mandatory if
> your embedded platform is anything other than your desktop arch!). You
> could adapt the crosstool buildscripts that uclibc uses, for example.
> If you just use debian's normal GCC, you're going to have a hell of a
> time convincing it to not use libc's include files/statically-linked
> startup objects/dynamic linker.

That's true. Probably something the upstream maintainer should consider to
provide.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
      Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:57:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@madism.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:57:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #85 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@madism.org>
To: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>, 534398@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:55:14 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:41:43AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:24:40AM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:47:16PM -0400, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 
> > > > Once libposix reaches maturity, I will certainly consider linking
> > > > applications I wrote myself against libposix. Applications linked against
> > > > it will probably use less memory
> > > 
> > > Why would they use less memory?
> > 
> > Since they don't link against a large library.
> 
> Which is a ridiculous argument given what the S in .so means. As soon as
> at least one always running program on your system uses glibc, you want
> to only use glibc if you want to save memory. It's simple as that.

PS: I read the full mail, and the postulate that all Debian can link
against libposix is wrong to begin with, because too many GNU stuff
heavily relies on GNU extensions to the libc. That's exactly why
kFreeBSD uses a GNU libc instead of the BSD one....


-- 
Intersec <http://www.intersec.com>
Pierre Habouzit <pierre.habouzit@intersec.com>
Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346
Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131
Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332
37 Rue Pierre Lhomme
92400 Courbevoie
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:00:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@madism.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <wnpp@debian.org>, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:00:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #90 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@madism.org>
To: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>, 534398@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#534398: ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:57:58 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:54:35AM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:33:44PM -0400, Bryan Donlan wrote:
> 
> > >> Why would they use less memory?
> > >
> > > Since they don't link against a large library. Granted, that is only a benefit
> > > if all running programs link against libposix instead of glibc.
> > 
> > What makes you think libposix will be smaller? It is currently very
> > incomplete; by the time it reaches a full implementation of POSIX, it
> > may well be the same size as libc.
> 
> Glibc implements much more than just POSIX, and it is not known for its
> leanness, hence the existence of dietlibc, uClibc, etc.

Most of its fat comes from stuff like Sun RPC, or gconv, that thanks to
eglibc you can switch off. I'm not saying libposix is a stupid idea,
just that it's meaningless to package it in Debian (especially in its
current state, but that's _really_ orthogonal).

-- 
Intersec <http://www.intersec.com>
Pierre Habouzit <pierre.habouzit@intersec.com>
Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346
Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131
Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332
37 Rue Pierre Lhomme
92400 Courbevoie
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>:
Bug#534398; Package wnpp. (Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:14:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. (Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:14:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #95 received at 534398@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>
To: 534398@bugs.debian.org
Cc: control@bugs.debian.org
Subject: libposix: changing back from ITP to RFP
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:02:56 +0000
retitle 534398 RFP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
noowner 534398
thanks

Hi,

This is an automatic email to change the status of libposix back from ITP
(Intent to Package) to RFP (Request for Package), because this bug hasn't seen
any activity during the last 6 months.

If you are still interested in adopting libposix, please send a mail to
<control@bugs.debian.org> with:

 retitle 534398 ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems
 owner 534398 !
 thanks

However, it is not recommended to keep ITP for a long time without acting on
the package, as it might cause other prospective maintainers to refrain from
packaging that software. It is also a good idea to document your progress on
this ITP from time to time, by mailing <534398@bugs.debian.org>.

Thank you for your interest in Debian,
-- 
Lucas, for the QA team <debian-qa@lists.debian.org>




Changed Bug title to 'RFP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems' from 'ITP: libposix -- unifed implementation of core functionality of all Unix systems' Request was from Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:16:43 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Removed annotation that Bug was owned by Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org>. Request was from Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:16:43 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Sun Apr 20 08:43:36 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.