Re: PATCH: Add x32 dummy sysctl

["Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>]

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com> wrote:
>> In ports, the linux-generic port does have a definition of sysctl() that
>> returns -1 with ENOSYS, and includes a stub_warning(). ?For now this avoids
>> potential issues from older code that might try to call this API as a
>> fallback if /proc/sys isn't available (for example).
>
> Yet it bloats the ABI and the library, which will persist far longer than
> the current state of any particular application source code. ?It's far
> better to require trivial fixes to crufty old code than to commit to
> carrying cruft in the libc ABI forever.

I disagree.

I think that glibc, of all places, must carry the burden.

There is a certain notion of consistency that must be kept across all
ports, even new ports, to make it easy to build a large collection of
userspace applications (see Chris' comments).

My feeling is that If we want to remove sysctl we need to do so with a
cohesive campaign of communication that involves all the distros and
follows a well documented process.

I would be happy with:
* Adding sysctl that returns ENOSYS
* Mark it deprecated.
* Install the headers normally.

Cheers,
Carlos.