Re: Delegation for trademark negotiatons with the DCCA
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 02:31 -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes...
> > It's ultimately Joey's call, but I think it would be far preferable to
> > try to fix these lapses in the core libs instead of shipping two
> > copies of libc and libpam with sarge r1.
> Well fixing the core would definitely violate the stable release criteria
> since it changes the ABIs. (at least that's my understanding, Jeff can confirm)
The PAM fix changes the behavior of the pam_unix module. The behavior
changed is not likely to ever be seen in the wild (basically, when a
blank username is submitted to session management, return an error
instead of PAM_SUCCESS), but it is a change. Certainly, however, this
could easily be fixed by patching the sarge pam module instead of using
the dynamic linker hack.
The glibc issues are numerous. The biggest problem involves POSIX
violations in NPTL 0.60, which evidently cannot be fixed in-place.
Also, there are several glibc 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 symbols that are now
required (more POSIX violations).
I have requested assistance with the glibc issues on several occasions,
and have been told that the best way forward is just to upgrade glibc.
So, I expect that the dynamic linker hack is really the best way