Re: [NETLINK]: Schedule removal of old macros exported to userspace

[Stefan Rompf <stefan@loplof.de>]

Am Samstag, 9. Dezember 2006 11:39 schrieb Thomas Graf:

[Added linux-kernel to CC]

> Index: net-2.6/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
> ===================================================================
> --- net-2.6.orig/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt	2006-12-09

NAK.

> +What:  Netlink message and attribute parsing macros
> +When:  July 2007
> +Why:   The old interface which often lead to buggy code has been replaced
> +       with a new type safe interface. Parts of this interface, mainly
> +       macros, has been exported to userspace via linux/netlink.h and
> +       linux/rtnetlink.h. Use of this interface is discontinued, all
> helper +       and utility macros will be removed. Userspace applications
> should use +       one of the available libraries.
> +Who:   Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>

So glibc should be linked to libnl that depends on glibc to compile? Be 
serious!

I see a worrying tendency of kernel developers trying to push their 
stable-api-is-nonsense approach to userspace. You cannot just go ahead and 
remove userspace API that has been exported for years in a six month period. 
99,9% of application developers are not even aware that 
feature-removal-schedule.txt exists. Sorry, these macros will have to stay 
for *years*, even though they are ugly.

Btw, do you know why I didn't realize the breakage before a user alerted me? I 
stopped testing and running every new kernel. Reason? It was stated that 
2.6.18 requires a mandatory upgrade of udev bloat. Last time I needed to 
compile a new udev because of incompatible sysfs changes, it took me over 
three hours to get my notebook running again. Considering that I need to do 
actual money earning work on that system, 2.6.17.x runs nicely and has no new 
bugs that concern me, I just keep using it. Collateral damage.

You know, I'm not so happy with the in kernel stable-api-is-nonsense approach 
because it does create insecurity for developers and therefore bugs. Anyway, 
I accept it, I'm just a part time kernel hacker. But behaving towards 
applications developers this way is *deadly* for linux acceptance! Stuff like 
KDE, or a postgres database server, or whatever is complex enough that 
developers don't have time to follow userspace breakage introduced just 
because of ugly macros.

Stefan