This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: openoffice 1.0.1 vs glibc cvs
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Jeff Chua <jchua at fedex dot com>
- Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot med dot uc dot edu>, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 18:19:17 +0100
- Subject: Re: openoffice 1.0.1 vs glibc cvs
- References: <3DD54881.2020701@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211162355420.1208-100000@boston.corp.fedex.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:04:36AM +0800, Jeff Chua wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>
> > Jack Howarth wrote:
> > > In any case, I don't see why everyone
> > > is rushing to make __libc_wait and __libc_waitpid GLIBC_PRIVATE if
> > > they are only exported for runtime resolution and not for linking.
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Because this is where the symbol belong. Broken programs got a long
> > enough period to adjust. They (and their users) don't deserve any petty.
> >
>
> Why not change "configure" to "disable_GLIBC_PRIVATE" for those users who
> still need to access old java like we do. We've many production servers
> out there on java 1.18 that depends on "version `GLIBC_2.1.1'", and we
> don't want to waste anymore time on investing old java technology, so
> can't upgrade to java-1.3/1.4 which means we can't upgrade to newer glibc.
>
> It'll be nice to be able to run both old/new java's on the same glibc ...
> and the current problem is all due to these glibc versions being defined
> by GLIBC_PRIVATE.
It is trivial to write a LD_PRELOAD library for JDK which needs this.
Jakub