Re: is it a real 9.0?

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

On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:40:21PM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > 
> > Well, just about any statically linked binary that worked under 8.0
> > won't work for me under 9 due to the TLS libc changes.
> That doesn't count as an ABI change - pretty sure statically linking
> to libc means you could break at any time, even due to an errata.
> Ditto for using symbols that start with "__"

Right, this is because glibc has an internal interface to dynamically
loaded libraries that implement things like hostname lookups, username
lookups, character conversion (iconv/gconv), etc.  If you dynamically
link to glibc, you will never have an internal interface mismatch.  If
you statically link to glibc, it's possible that these internal
private interfaces might not match resulting in problems.

This is one reason why the LGPL has a clause which requires people who
statically link provide a method for relinking a binary against a
newer version of the static library.  (see LGPL paragraph 6).

As long as you're not doing a lot of internationalization, name
resolver, or user/group ID functionality you're mostly safe, but there
are no guarantees for statically linked apps.


Matt Wilson
Manager, Base Operating Systems
Red Hat, Inc.

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Centos Users]     [Kernel Development]     [Red Hat Install]     [Red Hat Watch]     [Red Hat Development]     [Red Hat Phoebe Beta]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Fedora Discussion]     [Gimp]     [Stuff]     [Yosemite News]
Powered by Linux