Re: Undo setrlimit patch for 2.1.3

[Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk at suse dot de>]

Hi,

On Sun, Jan 23, H . J . Lu wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 05:49:25PM +0100, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Cristian Gafton, Andreas Schwab, Andreas Jaeger and me have the opinium,
> > that we should revert the setrlimit changes for glibc 2.1.3. Which means,
> > RedHat and SuSE will ship the next glibc 2.1.3 without the setrlimit
> > changes.
> > 
> > The reason is simple: We have a binary incompatiblity between glibc 2.1.3
> > and glibc 2.1.2, but no new functionality or bug fixes.
> > All Distributors uses the stable 2.2.x kernel, and nobody knows when
> > 2.4 is ready. So it doesn't make sense to have unused support for one
> > new feature.
> > 
> 
> I thought it was handled by the symbol versioning and I had fixed the
> linker to do the right thing. Do you have a testcase to show that
> glibc 2.1.3 is binary incompatible with glibc 2.1.2? Are you talking
> about binaries compiled against glibc 2.1.3 won't run with glibc 2.1.2?
> As you may know, it is true even if the setrlimit changes are backed
> out, due to those new symbols with version GLIBC_2.1.3.

Try the following: Compile bash with glibc 2.1.3 and let them run on
a glibc 2.1.2 system. It complains about setrlimit 2.1.3.
But there is no difference between this setrlimit versions, since 
distributors uses linux kernel 2.2.x, not unstable 2.3.x.
The other problem is, that a software vendor, if he uses glibc 2.1.3,
cannot sell his software for 2.1.2 or 2.1.1. He needs an old system
with glibc 2.1 for compiling.

  Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Kukuk       http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/       kukuk@suse.de
SuSE GmbH            Schanzaeckerstr. 10            90443 Nuernberg
Linux is like a Vorlon.  It is incredibly powerful, gives terse,
cryptic answers and has a lot of things going on in the background.