Current-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: HEADS UP: I will be merging christos-time_t by the end of the week

On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 03:17:01PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> And it *might* be possible to not bump dependent library versions, with
> that set of toolchain modifications (to reject attempts to bring in two
> versions of libc at once).  What do others think?

This does not work, because existing executables will suddenly fail --
the executable itself will have a dependency on, for
example, and  Now, we replace with a version
that has a dependency on -- suddenly the existing
executable fails.

What Christos has done takes care of this case about as elegantly as
possible.  The existing executable will get (the new version
with the compatibility code) and the _old_  This will work.
A new executable will get (with the compatibility code, which
will be unused in this case) and, which will depend on  This will work.

The problem will arise if you do this:

        * Build executable 'foo' on a new system with and

        * Build on an old (5.0) system with (old
          version, no compat code, no 64-bit time_t).

        * Bring executable 'foo' to that system and try to run it.  It
          will have libY.11, but that libY will have 32-bit time_t.

Ow, ow, ow.  But I see no graceful way around this.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index