From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 62607 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2016 23:30:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 62574 invoked by uid 89); 8 Nov 2016 23:30:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=add-on, addon, our X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 23:30:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Florian Weimer CC: GNU C Library Subject: Re: What to do about libidn? In-Reply-To: <44cead16-9db0-a4c0-82cd-1f6178260ed7@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <44cead16-9db0-a4c0-82cd-1f6178260ed7@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) To svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00310.txt.bz2 On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Florian Weimer wrote: > This has several problems: 8. Updating libidn would be problematic for license reasons (it's non-FSF-assigned and upsteam is now LGPLv3). > Should we remove our internal copy and try to dlopen libidn2? Maybe falling > back to libidn if libdn2 is unavailable? Bundle libidn2? Write our own > implementation? Given that glibc's libidn add-on is not itself a public ABI or API, dlopening an external library would seem a reasonable way of implementing that getaddrinfo functionality. Suppose we remove libidn (with or without keeping the libidn functionality through dlopen of another library). Then we have no in-tree uses of the add-ons mechanism. Do we have any use for keeping that mechanism for out-of-tree add-ons, or should it be removed? -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com