Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
From: David Laight <email@example.com>
Date: 08/27/2002 13:52:19
> Yes, but suppose then that /bin/ls dlopen() some other stuff, which in
> turn wants to access stuff in libc, and the thing dlopen():en is from an
> older build. It can then refer to an older version of libc than the one
> you statically linked in.
No - not unless you (erronously) included libc.a when building your
shared library (or there has been a major version number chamnge to libc).
The current libc is the one that would be included.
> Okay. So we really are in this shit already. Oh, in that case I can't
> really see why we don't add dlopen() to the static library and just go for
Because it doesn't work that way - see other bits of this thread.
> We already went over this. Yes, dlopen() is not available to static linked
> binaries today. *That* is what I'm talking about. Let's add it.
> There is nothing (by the hand of god) that prevents you from having the
> same code as ld.so (and then dlopen()) included in a static library.
and that would make it a dynamically linked program!
David Laight: firstname.lastname@example.org