Re: [PATCH] Kill regexp.h

[Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/12/2015 03:27 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> ... this patch stubs out the header and demotes the
>> implementation to compatibility symbols.  I hope this is not too late
>> to squeeze into glibc 2.22.
>
> Too late for 2.22. You posted on the 12th which was technically frozen.
> Please keep discussing for 2.23.

OK. I won't be able to submit a revised patch till after 2.23 opens
due to the use of SHLIB_COMPAT.

>> The ABI checker does not appear to cover these symbols; I manually
>> tested the effect of the patch as follows:
>
> Interesting. I would have expected the ABI symbol checker to catch these
> symbols... but I haven't looked yet.

I was mistaken, the .abilist files *do* cover these symbols.  (The
tool described at
http://ispras.linuxbase.org/index.php/ABI_compliance_checker cannot
process the *header*, which is what confused me.)

>> N.B. I believe there *is* a past-and-future-changes copyright
>> assignment on file for me for glibc, but it was filed long, long
>> ago, if I need to do new paperwork that's OK.
>
> The problem is that your past-and-futures-changes were with
> zack@rabi.phys.columbia.edu, and we don't know what your present
> employer might say about the copyright of your work. Therefore
> we do need new paperwork either personal ones for you @panix.com,
> or corporate coverage.

My current employer is CMU and I believe they make no copyright claim
on work done on my own time with no use of university resources.  I
will get the ball rolling on a new personal copyright assignment.

> At a high level your patch looks OK, it makes sense to deprecate
> these interfaces, but I think we should to do this in two stages.
> Add warnings and then remove.

Hm. If we do that then I would feel obliged to fix the bugs in the
header in phase one. I'm not sure that's worth doing...

zw