Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 12:19:48PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > In short, we have only three choices, regardless of what happens in > > > libtool: > > > > > > 1) Implement Red Hat's ugly patch in our libc5 ld.so, and thereby be > > > bugwards compatible with everybody else's Linux. > > > > > 2) Find some other way to make -rpath on Debian work for the common > > > cases (programs built by libtool included in this category). > > > > I really see no choice, if RH has patched their ld.so we simply must or > > risk being totally incompatible with a huge chunk of binaries. So we need > > to do one of the above, the most sensible is to steal RH's patch so that > > we are compatible. > > I agree. Option 1 is definitely the best. I also agree with the rest of > Gordon Matzigkeits message. Debian has done a (not so) small mistake in the > libc5->libc6 transition, and it is our responsibility to fix it. > > Note that the RH patch probably can't break much which isn't already broken. > (only if someone has system library installed somewhere else and tries to > addresse it with rpath, if I understood correctly. This should happen less > than libc5 binaries with rpath from other sources).
Now to convince David Engel ... Cheers, - Jim
