On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 23:02, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote: > > Apparently the "different interpretation" is what I was assuming the > > current one. > > Yeah, I was in a severe headache for a while because I too knew about the > old interpretation apparently. > > > How about the implementing the GNU extension? > > It would be useful, yes. But I think it is completely out of the > possibilities for the near future -- you need to get it upstream, and let it > deploy first. Why? Can't we just use it in Debian? If we do it by using the tag associated with DT_SYMBOLIC it will be completely compatible. Libraries using it will be treated like normal -Bsymbolic ones on non-Debian glibc systems (the user can tell the difference with readelf).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part