forestalling GNU incompatibility - proposal for binary relative dynamic linking

[Randy.Dunlap]

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    >    With the same version of gcc, and glibc even - *without* the
>    >    patches that SuSE supplies.
>    > 
>    > Then it is SuSE's fault that they apply patches that make things
>    > incompatible.  So go blame them instead.
> 
>    I'm not 'blaming' anybody, just pointing out observations.
> 
> So point it out to the SuSE folks, because it isn't the problem of
> glibc or gcc if SuSE applies patches that make things incompatible.
> 
>    >    If your argument is that building glibc isn't for the faint of
>    >    heart and should be left to the experts, my question is why?
>    > 
>    > Because it is a integral part of the system, it can break your
>    > system badly, it can make your system unbootable (due to a broken
>    > /lib/ld.so.1 or whatever), etc, etc.
> 
>    Well of course, but my point is that's exactly why you should be
>    able to run two glibcs simultaneously on the same system.
> 
> You can run two glibcs of different versions simultaneously on the
> same system, that SuSE happens to break things so that x.y.z-SuSE
> doesn't work with programs linked against x.y.z or the other way
> around is their fault.
> 
> Cheers.

I agree that this is mostly OT for gcc, but I don't see how this is
just a SUSE problem.  IOW, I doubt that they are the only distro
that modifies glibc.  However, this would be better addressed via
LSB or LCC or some OSDL projects IMO.

-- 
~Randy