This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: forestalling GNU incompatibility - proposal for binary relative dynamic linking


On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 05:06:34AM +0100, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
> 
> On 2005-01-26, at 23:20, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> 
> >>   With the same version of gcc, and glibc even - *without* the
> >>   patches that SuSE supplies.
> >>
> >>Then it is SuSE's fault that they apply patches that make things
> >>incompatible.  So go blame them instead.
> >
> >   I'm not 'blaming' anybody, just pointing out observations.
> >
> >So point it out to the SuSE folks, because it isn't the problem of
> >glibc or gcc if SuSE applies patches that make things incompatible.
> >
> Uninformed that you are you are misguiding people to waist their time.
> You have no clue. There is no "official" glibc release
> out there remotely compatible with kernel 2.6 and gcc 3.4. Thus there 
> isn't
> anything out there SuSE could be incompatible with.
> 

man... where did that piece of venom come from? I've got to ask you a 
question - if there is 'no standard', how can LSB is the answer?

SuSE is incompatible with redhat, debian, fedora, etc. Redhat is 
incompatible with SuSE, debian, fedora, etc. And so forth. You need
a lot of extra effort to make a cross-linux executable distribution.

As for official releases, the fact that there is a glibc-2.3.4 and 
glibc-2.3.3 itself is misleading thing. libc shouldn't give them milestone
numbers unless they consider them stable enough for use. People are not mind
readers; you shouldn't expect me to be one.

Ed

( ps - its 'waste', not 'waist'... )


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]