Subject: Re: Removal of SA vs. icky libc ABI breakage
To: Quentin Garnier <email@example.com>
From: Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/08/2007 00:06:29
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 08:29:17AM +0100, Quentin Garnier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 02:46:39AM +0100, Lubomir Sedlacik wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 06:47:58PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > I think that it may only be necessary to create a small .so containing
> > > the new syscall stubs. Then only the new libpthread would be needed.
> > >
> > > Maybe ld.so.conf could get the library loaded, alternatively it could
> > > be built with a .SONAME matching that of libpthread, with a .NEEDED
> > > entry to pull in the new libpthread itself.
> > both ways work, i just tested. here's what i did.
> Yes, but it was very much expected. The question is: what's easier?
> libc, libcrypt and libpthread are part of a normal build, as we do every
> week, so distribution is not a problem. I don't see how we would build
> that small .so, except as a one time thing and provide just the binary
> on the site. Less than ideal.
I'd still like to see it available somewhere, for the benefit of pkg_comp
users at last. For example, right now the 2.1/i386 and /sparc binary
in pub/pkgsrc/ are built in a chroot on a box running netbsd-3 kernels
(for various reasons, I can't use netbsd-2 kernels on these boxes).
I may have to do the same in the future to build 3.x and 4.x binary
Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference