rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 109 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/versioning.mdwn b/open_issues/versioning.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index 18fb588e..00000000
--- a/open_issues/versioning.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,109 +0,0 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2012, 2013, 2014 Free Software Foundation,
-Inc."]]
-
-[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
-id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
-document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
-any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
-Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
-is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
-License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
-
-Things to consider regarding *versioning*.
-
-The provider and user of any interface need to agree about how to interpret the
-data being exchanged.  Internal-only interfaces can be changed easily, because
-you can change the provider and user at the same time.  Interfaces that are
-exposed externally require more attention, for obvious reasons.  To *change*
-interfaces means to either remove, or add, or modify an existing interface.
-Modify basically means to remove and then re-add a variant, re-using the former
-name/identifier.
-
-[[!toc]]
-
-
-# [[RPC]]s
-
-## [[microkernel/mach/message/msgh_id]]
-
-
-# Shared Libraries
-
-  * [[!wikipedia soname]]
-  * ELF symbol versioning
-  * [[!wikipedia "GNU Libtool"]]
-
-
-## Hurd
-
-Transition to "normal" ELF symbol versioning/libtool?
-
-For all libraries, the SONAME is currently set to *0.3*.  [[!message-id
-desc="Not changed" "87ob7cxbu6.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net"]] when doing the
-[[Hurd 0.5 release|news/2013-09-27]].
-
-
-## glibc
-
-Bump the glibc SONAME to some point, or can do everything with symbol
-versioning?
-
-There are some comments in the sources, for example `hurd/geteuids.c`: `XXX
-Remove this alias when we bump the libc soname.`
-
-
-### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-12-14
-
-[[!tag open_issue_glibc open_issue_libpthread]]
-
-In context of [[packaging_libpthread]]/[[libpthread]].
-
-    <pinotree> once libc is switched internally from cthreads to pthreads (thus
-      breaking its BC), may be worth cleanup the hurd-specific exported symbols
-    <tschwinge> pinotree: Yes.  If you already have ideas about what to clean
-      up, feel free to add a new page or a section on open_issues/glibc.
-    <pochu> we're gonna break backwards compatibility in glibc on hurd? that
-      could be the perfect moment to fix the /dev/fd/N problem without adding
-      new RPCs, though we'd probably have to break backwards-compatibility in
-      the exec server IIRC...
-
-[[glibc#execve_relative_paths]].
-
-
-### `time_t` -- Unix Epoch vs. 2038
-
-#### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-12-12
-
-    <azeem> because it gets discussed in #debian-devel for the Linux i386
-      architecture right now: what's the deal with hurd-i386 and the 32bit
-      epoch overflow in 2038?
-    <braunr> what do you mean ?
-    <azeem> braunr: http://lwn.net/Articles/563285/
-    <braunr> ok but what do you mean ?
-    <braunr> i don't think there is anything special with the hurd about that
-    <azeem> well, time_t is 64bit on amd64 AIUI
-    <braunr> it's a signed long
-    <azeem> so maybe the Hurd guys were clever from the start
-    <azeem> k, k
-    <braunr> our big advantage is that we can afford to break things a little
-      without too much trouble
-    <braunr> in a system at work, we use unsigned 32-bit words
-    <braunr> which overflows in 2106
-    <braunr> and we already include funny comments that predict our successors,
-      if any, will probably fail to deal with the problem until short before
-      the overflow :>
-    <azeem> luckily, no nuclear reactors are running the Hurd sofar
-    <braunr> i wonder how the problem will be dealt with though
-    <braunr> ah, openbsd decided to break their abi
-    <azeem> yeah
-    <braunr> that's probably the simplest solution
-    <azeem> "just recompile"
-    <braunr> and they can afford it too
-    <azeem> yeah
-    <braunr> good to see people actually worry about it
-    <azeem> I guess people are getting worried about where Linux embedded is
-      being put into
-    <braunr> they're right about that
-    <azeem> "Please, don't fix the 2038 year issue. I also want to have some
-      job security :)"
-    <braunr> haha