Re: is it a real 9.0?
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On Mon, 2003-04-07 at 22:40, Havoc Pennington wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 02:32:05PM -0500, Shawn wrote: > > On Mon, 2003-04-07 at 14:21, Klaasjan Brand wrote: > > > I understand not everything works out of the box on shrike, but "binary > > > incompatible" implies to me nothing running on 8.0 works on 9, which > > > isn't the case for me. Anyone got an update which software definately > > > doesn't work on 9? > > > > 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 "__" > > If the libc ABI were considered officially changed it would have gone > to libc.so.7 and there would be libc.so.6 in a compat package. > > That's my understanding anyway. I can see your view of it, but I'll just have to agree to disagree :) The biggest problem I have with using RedHat8.x/9 is the C++ ABI change. I'm currently the maintainer of a Linux version of a adventure game engine (free as in beer, not as in GPL, I'm not the original author, so I have no control over that). Just like Loki Games did, I distribute both static and dynamic versions of the binaries. No one likes the dynamic binary, mainly because there's about 6 different specific versions of libraries that have to be installed, and almost no one except RedHat users can run the binaries not only because of the C++ ABI change brought with gcc3.2+ or because of the glibc2.3 library that RedHat 9 has. How does a commercial or non-commercial (in my case) developer properly release binaries for other platforms and avoid all of these currently very ugly issues? The last thing users really want to deal with is library dependencies, C++ ABI changes, glibc ABI changes, etc. Currently I'm discussing a problem with some RH people in Bugzilla about the fact that I can compile and link a static binary on my RedHat 9 system that *won't run* on my RedHat 9 system, but will run if I reboot to Debian Woody 3.0, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me. Especially since the same thing worked under 8.0... -- Shawn <drevil@xxxxxxxxxxxx> http://www.warpcore.org/
[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]