From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43628C43441 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 21:00:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D6F320858 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 21:00:19 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0D6F320858 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389067AbeKPHJn (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2018 02:09:43 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-f196.google.com ([209.85.222.196]:45655 "EHLO mail-qk1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725860AbeKPHJn (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2018 02:09:43 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-f196.google.com with SMTP id d135so34057019qkc.12 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:00:17 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:openpgp:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xp2ona9E8uIkAWkzQq/Qm1Usibdrg/gG0CvEePIelmg=; b=Ay+Sed2JGTySJgaaWpx60N0fiPsZIDjPZ4+SXyMNcPPDeoYFM2l3SeqrxBCs7n6wYX yoPO/lisFgpYK0DYbBMufWZacZvNCPQfLtN9KAdmTyNvK9WUwuuso61xJ8rgx0zbPSak t9MOkiLH2lVszQ1VoFbz8MUbv+qhwRV53Wvea7VQZYKKo8S+xFauR130RqTapj1SqVQC 45RHw8m7A5nPo/EJyfmKcTw503FA/tUA2i9zk4MGscstewrO43KUhJAQAxrrfrWWl4eA fwXunwXjrre34C77ytvM0aVbq22VzMQvSN//aMQP76VzK9fFEGYBAqvQz0fPN/zaI7Jc 2oiw== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJPUCKoC7AFrUBoKp7CDMML2kjdyi0dQuGSjsczZKb/xl3d+jaY 2aZbNKTmjxLInil7onExknwTOQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5eOX2MKMIRd7mU4p2BGvghh3X91nVkLiwoiqa88SWXxrFCYONNMZo9kdxsVlK2kaq5N76xTRQ== X-Received: by 2002:a37:10cf:: with SMTP id 76mr7372175qkq.99.1542315616135; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:00:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.150.73.190] (161.sub-174-227-144.myvzw.com. [174.227.144.161]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l30sm6947604qte.44.2018.11.15.13.00.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:00:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Official Linux system wrapper library? To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Joseph Myers , Daniel Colascione , Szabolcs Nagy , Dave P Martin , nd , Florian Weimer , "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , linux-kernel , Joel Fernandes , Linux API , Willy Tarreau , Vlastimil Babka , "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" References: <875zx2vhpd.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <20181113193859.GJ3505@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> <5853c297-9d84-86e5-dede-aa2957562c6b@arm.com> <20181115053026.GA20617@thunk.org> <20181115170807.GB20617@thunk.org> From: Carlos O'Donell Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: <48868f73-53b4-a01a-de73-4a7b56b91c60@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:00:12 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181115170807.GB20617@thunk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/15/18 12:08 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 04:29:43PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2018, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: >> >>> That's great. But is it or is it not true (either de jure or de >>> facto) that "a single active glibc developer" can block a system call >>> from being supported by glibc by objecting? And if not, under what is >>> the process by resolving a conflict? >> >> We use a consensus-building process as described at >> . > > So can a single glibc developer can block Consensus? Yes. I think the comparison to the "liberum veto" is not a fair comparison to the way the glibc community works :-) (1) Community consensus. Consensus need not imply unanimity. Consensus is only from the set of important and concerned interests. The community gets to decide that you're a troll that does no real work, and can therefore ignore you. Consensus is blocked only by sustained objection (not just normal objections, which are recorded as part of the development process e.g. "I don't like it, but I leave it up to you to decide"). Therefore an involved glibc developer can lodge a sustained objection, and block consensus. (2) The GNU package maintainers for glibc. There are 8 GNU package maintainers for glibc. The package maintainers created the consensus process to empower the community, but they can act as a final review committee to move issues where there are two reasonable but competing view points. As Joseph points out we haven't ever used the GNU pakcage maintainers to vote on a stuck issue, but I will arrange it when the need arises. If you think we're at that point with wrapper functions, just say so, but it doesn't seem like it to me. -- Cheers, Carlos.