Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > In general I'd say shared objects should always be linked against > libc. But Theo will probably never agree with me.
Let's be accurate what this means. It does not mean linking about libc. It means encoding a specific libc.so.#.# as DT_NEEDED, which will cause us complete garbage later on Or maybe it means having /usr/lib/libc.so symbolic links? All that kinds of stuff makes me just want to give up. Maybe we need to head the way of Linux, where ABI changes are not allowed. Because they would become impossible, as they are in Linux. (Please don't tell me what Linux can "still add things to their ABI". They actually can't, without hundreds of hours of study, half the time they try to add something, it shows they need to change something or remove something else that isn't allowed by their stupid rules) Locking us to names, or to files, or to symbolic links, is a non-starter. It was never part of the design. It's just that some stupid people made bad unnecessary decisions. This is a lot like the X va import, btw. Unintended consequences were not discovered ahead of time. I'm not complaining, I'm just saying 'cloning a compatible interface' often goes wrong.
