On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 05:15:05PM +1000, matthew green wrote: > > Hmmm. The origional plan had said /lib. > > yeah, i know. that's why i told you :-) basically, enough people > complained that not using /libexec/ld.elf_so would be to break the > consistency of the system, yadda yadda yadda. i don't care and > prolly would have preferred to not have a new /libexec for one file, > but whatever ... Ahwell. Really, we can put it wherever the heck we want, as long as we make sure that GCC knows about it. And since we can have Debian patches to GCC to fix that... it's not a big deal. I may even make an attempt at writing and submitting a patch to point it at /lib, at some point here. A few other things have higher priority, though. > NetBSD is native libc. FreeBSD is GNU libc. Beward of trying to run native > applications, however; they may or may not be linked against the same > versions of various libraries that Debian has (though, in theory, if the > soname matches it SHOULD work, and if it doesn't, it should fail on the > inability to link at runtime). > > > i'm not so worried about non-libc shared libraries, but libc itself. > how do i take an application build for a normal freebsd host and run > it on debian/freebsd? is their libc around somewhere for it to find > or will it try to use glibc (and almost definately fail)? As far as I know... this won't be possible, at least initially. However, I don't claim to know all the intricacies of what this would take, and whether or not it would be feasible (or will be done, even if it is). -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
Attachment:
pgp3Z5EWU6icd.pgp
Description: PGP signature