#
303975 |
|
11-Aug-2016 |
gjb |
Copy stable/11@r303970 to releng/11.0 as part of the 11.0-RELEASE cycle.
Prune svn:mergeinfo from the new branch, and rename it to RC1.
Update __FreeBSD_version.
Use the quarterly branch for the default FreeBSD.conf pkg(8) repo and the dvd1.iso packages population.
Approved by: re (implicit) Sponsored by: The FreeBSD Foundation |
#
302408 |
|
08-Jul-2016 |
gjb |
Copy head@r302406 to stable/11 as part of the 11.0-RELEASE cycle. Prune svn:mergeinfo from the new branch, as nothing has been merged here.
Additional commits post-branch will follow.
Approved by: re (implicit) Sponsored by: The FreeBSD Foundation
|
#
258587 |
|
25-Nov-2013 |
peter |
Move the iconv wrapper source from libc_nonshared to libc/iconv so that it is all in the one place again. Rename libc/iconv/iconv.c to bsd_iconv.c. Compile the wrappers into libc.a so that WITHOUT_DYNAMICROOT works again.
Discussed with: kib (and partly stolen from his patch)
|
#
258283 |
|
17-Nov-2013 |
peter |
Attempt to move the POSIX iconv* symbols out of runtime linker space. FreeBSD systems usually implemented this as a third party module and our implementation hasn't played as nicely with the old way as it could have.
To that end: * Rename the iconv* symbols in libc.so.7 to have a __bsd_ prefix. * Provide .symver compatability with existing 10.x+ binaries that referenced the iconv symbols. All existing binaries should work. * Like on Linux/glibc systems, add a libc_nonshared.a to the ldscript at /usr/lib/libc.so. * Move the "iconv*" wrapper symbols to libc_nonshared.a
This should solve the runtime ambiguity about which symbols resolve to where. If you compile against the iconv in libc, your runtime dependencies will be unambiguous.
Old 9.x libraries and binaries will always resolve against their libiconv.so.3 like they did on 9.x. They won't resolve against libc.
Old 10.x binaries will be satisified by the .symver helpers.
This should allow ports to selectively compile against the libiconv port if needed and it should behave without ambiguity now.
Discussed with: kib
|