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

[Marcin Dalecki <martin at dalecki dot de>]

On 2005-01-27, at 17:17, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

> > So point it out to the SuSE folks, because it isn't the problem
> > of glibc or gcc if SuSE applies patches that make things
> > incompatible.
>
>    Uninformed that you are you are misguiding people to waist their
>    time.  You have no clue. There is no "official" glibc release out
>    there remotely compatible with kernel 2.6 and gcc 3.4. Thus there
>    isn't anything out there SuSE could be incompatible with.
>
> Yup, uninformed, misguided and no clue whatsoever.  That is why I have
> glibc 2.3.x nicely working with gcc 3.4 without introducing any silly
> incompatibilities, and you don't.

I have not a problem with cross Linux to Linux build of this piece. 
What I'm
fighting with is a true clean bootstrap of it in a cross OS build of the
whole tool-chain.

> And even if it wouldn't compile
> with 3.4, you can always use a older version of gcc, and still be able
> to not introduce any incompatibilities.

You are joking? Aren't you? Again this is another idea you spread which
results only in a waste of time. I wish you a lot of fun with NPTL and 
old GCC
versions.

> But obviously, I don't have a clue what so ever, so I will just go
> back to hacking.