Bug#165358: workaround for __libc_fork and winex 2.0
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 06:25:59PM -0500, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 09:58, GOTO Masanori wrote:
>
> > BTW, for debian glibc developer, redhat patch also moves this part to
> > posix/Versions. We have 2 way to take action with this issue:
> >
> > (1) Applying this patch (with some modification), and we keep
> > applying until after sarge is released.
>
> I object to adding the patch - We cannot start a tradition of
> compensating for broken software that uses hidden interfaces. Apps are
> going to hit this problem on all major arch's. Certainly wine[x] is
> working on a patch. I believe all of the new JDKs out there work fine.
> Bigloo is the only other program we've had complaints for.
I object to not adding the patch. Just like our other compatibility
patches, these binaries are a fact of life; we should prevent exposing
the symbols at _link_ time, but there's no benefit to us in hiding them
at runtime.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: