Re: CVS commit: src/doc

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost>]

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 10:29:02PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 29.02.2020 21:58, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 07:36:00PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> >> On 29.02.2020 19:00, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> >>>> Module Name:    src
> >>>> Committed By:   kamil
> >>>> Date:           Sat Feb 29 04:27:01 UTC 2020
> >>>>
> >>>> Modified Files:
> >>>>         src/doc: CHANGES
> >>>>
> >>>> Log Message:
> >>>> ld.elf_so(1): Implement DT_GNU_HASH
> >>>
> >>> Was this discussed anywhere?
> >>
> >> In the toolchain circles, for some time now (2+ years).
> >>
> >> It was one of the pending task to modernize our ELF loader on par with
> >> at least FreeBSD.
> > 
> > Can we please stop with this "we must need XXX to be on par with YYY"
> > nonsense without actually looking at the details first and discuss them?
> > Practically speaking, there was moderately little discussion about the
> > actual design choices of DT_GNU_HASH, especially some of its deficits.
> > Especially because we already have some important improvements in our
> > tree *without breaking compatibility*. Especially the size claims are
> > questionable at best as justification are weak at best. It also ignores
> > that by design DT_GNU_HASH conflicts with at least one platform ABI.
> > 
> > Joerg
> > 
> 
> Just keeping DT_GNU_HASH support around does not break compat. Full
> replacement of HASH algorithm would break compat but nobody wants to do
> it (at least in NetBSD).

Can you please stop speaking for the NetBSD community? Seriously, that
alone makes me want to just /dev/null all messages. "Keeping DT_GNU_HASH
around" is funny, given that it just got added without any discussion.

Joerg