From: Olaf Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 31 Jan 1999 11:39:23 +0100
> Hi, all!
> There's been so much traffic on this thread, that I suspect most
> people have missed the fact that Ian Lance Taylor has analyzed and
> *solved* the problems with interact
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:08:51 -0600
From: David Engel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I am the Debian and upstream maintainer of the libc5 ld.so. Ian's
patch will not be going in.
I think most people understand this, but I should make clear that it's
not my patch. I assume it's from Eric Troa
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:52:48 -0700 (MST)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That's not what I'd like libtool to do. I agree there is a problem to
> be fixed, I just think that libtool is not the only piece of software
> that may have to be changed to fix it, because it
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:06:04 -0700 (MST)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 30 Jan 1999, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Obviously, this would have never been needed if old libraries had not
> been replaced with (in)compatible versions, but the maintainers of
> Debian have
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:42:32 +0100
From: Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In general, it's convenient to store the path in the executable any
> time a shared library is installed in a directory which the dynamic
> linker does not search by default.
Yes, I should have na
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:10:26 +0100
From: Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Is there a better way to do a library transition? I think it is very
obvious, that the only correct behaviour is to change the
library/soname of all involeved libraries when doing a transition.
So
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:30:43 +0100
From: Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Why should the application choose to hard code the PATH in the binary?
AFAICS, there is no apparent reason for it. What has the path to do with the
library? I think the only thing that should be hard co
7 matches
Mail list logo
