This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 06/21/2018 12:47 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:40 PM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:On 05/22/2018 12:34 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:On Mon, 21 May 2018, Zack Weinberg wrote:No, this is an intentional deviation from the present state of POSIX, anticipating the removal of those functions from the standard.That would only seem relevant to the _XOPEN_CRYPT value in future POSIX modes, not current ones.So we should stop defining _XOPEN_CRYPT, but continue to declare crypt in <unistd.h> for __USE_MISC || __USE_XOPEN? That would work for me.Again, I think that it is inappropriate to stop defining _XOPEN_CRYPT in any mode. Yes, this is an intentional deviation from POSIX, but I think it is far less likely to break existing programs than the alternative.
How can we resolve this conflict?We have mostly cleaned up Fedora 28 to build with !_XOPEN_CRYPT already. There weren't many changes AFAICS, and they fall broadly into two categories:
(1) Not including <crypt.h> for the crypt function, only <unistd.h>. (2) Using DES functions. (1) was far more common than (2).We'll keep the declaration of crypt in <unistd.h> for _DEFAULT_SOURCE, so (1) will not be a problem. (2) will not be addressed independently of the definition of _XOPEN_CRYPT.
This is why I'm fine with Joseph's approach. It may even make it marginally easier to check whether you need your own DES implementation.
I would like to see a decision soon because I'm wondering if I have to back out the libxcrypt switch.
Thanks, Florian
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |