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.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part