From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier To: Jeffrey A Law , "H.J. Lu" Cc: egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: __register_frame_info & shared library compatibility Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 23:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: <19990408214924.A21750@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> References: <29123.923599928@upchuck> X-SW-Source: 1999-04n/msg00274.html Message-ID: <19990430231500.j-1ey3DGt7X3xt7EMhZ1VKRUbQbj55evGi5ClUqvfxg@z> Jeffrey A Law wrote: > > Or they can use the latest glibc 2.0 via CVS. I am willing to set up a > > ftp site with tar files. > What am I not being clear about? > > This kind of binary breakage is not acceptable. It doesn't matter if you > put a new glibc somewhere. Breaking binaries like that patch did is not > acceptable. The patch does *not break binaries*. Installing EGCS and using it to compile new applications does *not break binaries*. But recompiling some shared libraries using EGCS with the patch breaks some binaries. Is it unreasonable to request a user upgrades to the latest Glibc 2.0, or any Glibc 2.1 before doing this? -- Jamie