On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 20:24, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > 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. The other compatibility patches are design to help programs that were following the rules and that broke. This patch is designed to help programs that were badly written. Will we be expected to maintain the internal structures when they change, too? In this particular case, we gain nothing by adding this patch (the various upstream authors recognise that they shouldn't have used that function and are patching their programs) - and simply postpone the fact that people have to replace these programs. Eventually the internal interface will change - and it will probably just quietly segfault or cause security problems instead of clearly saying that the program has problems. I think we should simply make sure that Sarge's release notes indicate that certain commercial programs (Java, WineX) had been incorrectly using the C library and may need to be upgraded to keep them running. Tks, Jeff Bailey -- When you get to the heart, use a knife and fork. - From instructions on how to eat an artichoke.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part