This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: forestalling GNU incompatibility - proposal for binary relative dynamic linking
- From: "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams at kemisten dot nu>
- To: Edward Peschko <esp5 at pge dot com>
- Cc: dank at kegel dot com, alan at lxorguk dot ukuu dot org dot uk, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:55:57 +0100
- Subject: Re: forestalling GNU incompatibility - proposal for binary relative dynamic linking
- References: <41F5E862.2030906@kegel.com> <20050125195606.GA29787@venus> <41F72F7B.4070500@kegel.com> <20050126211549.GC29787@venus>
- Reply-to: ams at kemisten dot nu
With the same version of gcc, and glibc even - *without* the
patches that SuSE supplies.
Then it is SuSE's fault that they apply patches that make things
incompatible. So go blame them instead.
If your argument is that building glibc isn't for the faint of
heart and should be left to the experts, my question is why?
Because it is a integral part of the system, it can break your system
badly, it can make your system unbootable (due to a broken
/lib/ld.so.1 or whatever), etc, etc.
Cheers!