Re: png2/3 problem apparently successfully solved with -Bsymbolic
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:04:40AM +0200, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 23:56, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 23:28, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> > > > > Why?
> > > > > Can't we just use it in Debian?
> > > >
> > > > Are you mad? What happens if the ELF format or gnu upstream start using that
> > > > value for something else?
> > > We notify them of the problem.
> > > Furthermore the patch can be immediately sent to the glibc maintainers.
> >
> > This is sort of like asking your wife if she did not like the new color you
> > paint*ed* the entire house with.
> But that field has at least 32 bits and anyway there are other place
> where extensions could be put so it's just a matter of having them put
> the extension in another place.
>
> So yes, it is equivalent to declaring ownership of bit 0 of the
> DT_SYMBOLIC value but I don't think this will piss anyone off especially
> given the comment from GNU endorsing an extension like this.
The comment is old. I don't think that attitude is current. I suspect
that Ulrich will not look kindly at this sort of local linker hackery.
And, yet again, you're ignoring the technical
implementation/maintenance burden of such a patch.
There will be _NO_ local linker hacks of this nature in Debian. Drop
it.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: