This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Incompatible ABI change? (was: Re: Assertion failed in ld.so: rtld.c:1180: dl_main when compiling glibc-2.3.3)
- From: Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>
- To: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:15:13 -0700
- Subject: Incompatible ABI change? (was: Re: Assertion failed in ld.so: rtld.c:1180: dl_main when compiling glibc-2.3.3)
[ Ulrich, you can safely ignore this message, it's not aimed at you. ]
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:59:38PM +0200, Enrique Perez-Terron wrote:
> I downloaded glibc-2.3.3 and tried to compile it using the following
> commands:
Jakub replied:
glibc-2.3.3 is too old to handle randomized vDSOs.
[ See also http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-hacker/2004-02/msg00053.html]
It sounds like the changes since 2.3.3 aren't just bugfixes.
If things have changed that much since the last release,
maybe it's time to think about another release.
For those who just tuned in, Ulrich has this to say on the subject:
To summarize: IMO tarballs are the wrong form of distribution and
announcements are misleading since they "announce" a code base which by
itself is not the recommended one.
[People who don't want to use cvs will have to start] unless somebody volunteers to
create tarballs (which is a mistake but I won't stop anybody making it).
(http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-hacker/2003-11/msg00154.html).
But other maintainers, like Roland McGrath, still think releases
are a good thing
(http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-hacker/2003-12/msg00014.html).
So, how 'bout it? Is the ability to handle randomized vDSOs
enough of an ABI change to warrant a new release?
- Dan
--
My technical stuff: http://kegel.com
My politics: see http://www.misleader.org for examples of why I'm for regime change