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 D2EFCC43441 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 17:15:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A300F223CB for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 17:15:02 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A300F223CB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codesourcery.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 S2388628AbeKPDXk (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2018 22:23:40 -0500 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]:53816 "EHLO relay1.mentorg.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387833AbeKPDXk (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2018 22:23:40 -0500 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=SVR-IES-MBX-03.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384:256) id 1gNLEI-0000bz-Bc from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 09:14:58 -0800 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.90) by SVR-IES-MBX-03.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.3) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 17:14:54 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1gNLEE-00008i-9o; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 17:14:54 +0000 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 17:14:54 +0000 From: Joseph Myers X-X-Sender: jsm28@digraph.polyomino.org.uk To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" CC: Daniel Colascione , Szabolcs Nagy , Dave P Martin , nd , Florian Weimer , "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , linux-kernel , Joel Fernandes , Linux API , Willy Tarreau , Vlastimil Babka , Carlos O'Donell , "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: Official Linux system wrapper library? In-Reply-To: <20181115170807.GB20617@thunk.org> Message-ID: 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> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Originating-IP: [137.202.0.90] X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-02.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.2) To SVR-IES-MBX-03.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 15 Nov 2018, 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? If it's a sustained objection - it still works an awful lot better than how things worked before 2011/12. (See my suggestion of having a process involving a supermajority vote of the GNU maintainers for glibc in the rare cases where a consensus cannot be reached - but those are rare enough that actually agreeing a process for such cases has never been a priority.) -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com