Re: forestalling GNU incompatibility - proposal for binary relative dynamic linking

[Edward Peschko <esp5 at pge dot com>]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 02:21:20PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 01:51:02PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 01:54:02PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > This discussion is off-topic for the gcc list.  Whether there are problems
> > > with glibc or the LSB is a matter for other lists, not for gcc@gcc.gnu.org.
> > 
> > You are correct, in that this particular complaint is not directly on-topic, 
> > and for that I apologize.
> > 
> > However, IMO the thread is definitely not off topic - my original post was 
> > an idea to amend the gcc toolchain to make running two separate glibcs
> > in parallel possible. And since glibc and gcc seem to be joined at the hip,
> > this is IMO definitely on topic.
> 
> If you identify something in gcc that needs to change in gcc to make this
> easier, yes.  But it seems to me that the work is all on the glibc end of
> things.

I was told that the two projects were basically almost 'joined at the hip'; 
that in order to make changes in one, that you often needed to make 
changes in the other.

So, going back to my original point, is this true? In order to make 
LD_LIBRARY_PATH rpath aware, would the changes be localized in glibc, 
or would hooks be needed in binutils and in gcc? What work would be
involved?

Ed