Subject: Re: stdio FILE extension
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Michael Richardson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/17/2001 15:10:26
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU> writes:
Robert> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 15:31:32 +0200
Robert> From: Ignatios Souvatzis <email@example.com>
Robert> Message-ID: <20011013153132.A26623@beverly.kleinbus.org>
Robert> | As has been discussed on the project mailing lists over and over:
Robert> | We can't bumb the libc major number, ever. We would have to bumb all the
Robert> | major numbers of all shared libraries - our own and third-party
Robert> | - that reference libc (that is, all of them).
Robert> I understand why we need to keep libc.12 essentially forever now, I don't
Robert> understand why that means we can't have a libc.13 (and 14, and ...) as well.
Robert> There's one reply I don't want to see though, that is "we can't do that
Robert> because the xxx tool doesn't do yyy". On the other hand, a response like
Robert> "Before we can do that, the xxx tool would need to be enhanced to do yyy"
Robert> would be just fine...
We can't do that until we can have a way to detect at build (ld) time that
we have mixed dependancies in shared objects. That's the topic of another
branch of this thread.
] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [