Re: What hack in ld.so?
On 30 Jan 1999, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Obviously, this would have never been needed if old libraries had not
> been replaced with (in)compatible versions, but the maintainers of
> Debian have already taken this step, despite the fact that this would
Look, it was not us that decided to do this. It was the upstream
maintainers, other dists and a huge combination of factors. It is not in
our power to choose a different direction to solve these problems, we must
have libc6 xlib called libX11.so.6 and we must have libc5 called
libX11.so.6 - that is what all the other dists did, that is the default
and expected compilation behavoir of xlib and it is what all the new glibc
binary-only programs are using (ie netscape)
If you want to say that is a dumb way then fine, but you have not proposed
an alternative to solving the versioning problem and you have not proposed
an alternative way to handle the requirement of identical sonames and
libtool continues to perpetuate this 'bad' behavoir and makes it worse by
providing no way to get around it with the standard linux ld.so
Indeed libtool causes such a severe problem that if you take a libtool
program, compile it on a libc5 Slackware and try to run it on -any- glibc
system IT WILL NOT WORK.
If you wish to make statement that binaries compiled with libtool work
only on the host they were compiled for and even then only in specific
conditions then fine - but that makes it totaly unsuitable for use by any
of the binary distribution maker.
Jason
Reply to: