Regardless, that is what developers have come to expect. Not that semver is adopted wholesale, but at least don't break the API without incrementing the major version.
Yeah I was kind of wondering what his take on something like this would be.
On the one hand you're changing an API, which is a promise to userspace. On the other hand, no one was using it right leading to most networking apps being vulnerable to a DOS.
Given the proven risk and how little the feature is used, changing the API to match what people THINK it does seems sane.
I have a vague memory or Linus making a similar 'change it' decision once.
Also according to this article it was either undocumented or extremely poorly documented depending on which doc's you look at. So maybe they're removing a feature a lot of developers either didn't know about or didn't know they COULD utilise.
If no examples could be found of someone relying on the behavior, then a change would be okay. Otherwise the solution would be to implement a modified API.
Alternatively glibc could change it, as glibc almost seems to want to break existing programs.
Interesting but raising my eyebrowns a bit because sounds a bit too black and white. Do you have time to explain more or do you have some data to back up such a claim?
we do not break user space
If an application is utilizing a bug, it is not a bug but a feature