Re: A symbol version patch for glibc 2.x compatibility

[Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>]

Ian Lance Taylor <ian@zembu.com> writes:

> They are portable tools.  I request that you keep this sort of
> argument off this list.

I wasn't talking about the tools but instead about the configuration
for Linux.  And yes, no *BSD person has any say in that.

What this person wants to do (for months and months now) is having his
way to recognizing Linux binaries.  He got repeatedly told (also by
various other BSD people) that this is not the way to do it and also
how to do it correctly.  Nevertheless he is coming back time and again
to get his will.  And now he even rose to the level of trying to argue
about the meaning of this field (which he got explained in the past,
too) although he is unqualified to make ultimate statements since from
the audience here only HJ and I were present when the decisions about
this were made.

If you want to protect people like this it's your decision.  I cannot
tolerate this since maybe at some point (just as it could have
happened now since you already signalled that you see no problems) he
finds somebody with write access who makes the change.


> That said, I do not think it would be incorrect to set the EI_OSABI
> field to ELFOSABI_LINUX when the binutils are configured for a
> GNU/Linux target.

You apparently have not even tried it.  Go on, do it.  Beside the fact
that it would incorrectly flag non-conformance every binary you create
would fail to run.

-- 
---------------.                          ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat          `--' drepper at redhat.com   `------------------------