This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Deprecate libcrypt and don't build it by default.
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Joseph Myers <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >> Back in June, Björn Esser proposed to add OpenBSD-compatible bcrypt
> >> support to our implementation of crypt(3), and I replied that it might
> >> actually make more sense to _remove_ libcrypt from glibc, freeing up
> >> libcrypt.so.1 and crypt.h to be provided by a separate project that
> >> could move faster. (For instance, libxcrypt:
> >> https://github.com/besser82/libxcrypt)
> > I don't believe libxcrypt's claim to be a binary-compatible replacement
> > for libcrypt.so.1. It looks to me like it uses symbol version GLIBC_2.0
> > unconditionally for the glibc symbols, when the actual base version
> > depends on the architecture / ABI for which glibc is built; GLIBC_2.0 is
> > only for a few architectures such as i386 with very longstanding ports.
> Well, that's just a plain old bug. Obviously a bug that needs to be
> fixed before we can call libxcrypt a binary-compatible drop-in
> replacement, but not a _difficult_ bug - they can crib from the
> libcrypt.abilist files. I'm willing to try to work up a patch if
> Björn agrees.
I'm not convinced that duplicating all the information about which ABIs
use which symbol versions, and how to distinguish different ABIs on each
architecture that has ABIs with different base versions, is a good idea.
(powerpc64le uses libcrypt-le.abilist; if you just used libcrypt.abilist
files, you'd miss that one.)
Joseph S. Myers