[tracking]: Remove SafeFileHandle for Unix

[deeprobin]

@deeprobin yeah it's a historical issue, and would need a hypothetical feature to fix: #26227 (comment)

Originally posted by @danmoseley in #60507 (comment)

I couldn't figure out the best area label to add to this issue. If you have write-permissions please help me learn by adding exactly one area label.

[danmoseley]

The proposal here is to find a way to move SafeFileHandle and such classes out of Microsoft.Win32.SafeHandles into some namespace that doesn't have the historic ties with Windows.

Unfortunately as far as I can see that requires a nonexistent feature that allows types to be forwarded between namespaces. I would expect we would need much more compelling reasons to do something like that. @jkotas has that ever come up?

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-system-runtime
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

@deeprobin yeah it's a historical issue, and would need a hypothetical feature to fix: #26227 (comment)

Originally posted by @danmoseley in #60507 (comment)

Author:	deeprobin
Assignees:	-
Labels:	area-System.Runtime, untriaged
Milestone:	-

[jkotas]

Namespace forwarding is a very complex feature to build. It comes up occasionally when the technology names or positioning changes, the old names are not good fit anymore and people would like to stay compatible with old names and have new names at the same time.

In practice, the changes in technology names or positioning are often accompanied by other (breaking) changes, so namespace forwarding would not actually help to fully solve the problem in many cases.

[danmoseley]

Thanks. @deeprobin I'm going to close this because we don't have sufficient compelling reason to make such a major investment - although I don't like the name either. thanks for opening this tracking issue though.