On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 12:57:46AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > At Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:45:36 -0500, > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 05:16:34PM -0700, Debian GLibc CVS Master wrote: > > > Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches > > > who: gotom > > > time: Mon Feb 3 17:16:34 MST 2003 > > > Log Message: > > > - debian/patches/0list: Disabled ldso-disable-hwcap.dpatch because > > > (1) -opt is not provided currently, (2) disabling hwcap is not good > > > way whether -opt package is installed or not. > > > > Um, did you talk to Ben about this? That patch is very important for > > smooth upgrades. > > No, I did not talk to Ben. > > IMHO, there are two reasons not to apply this dpatch. In first, -opt > is not provided currently. And second, if a user designates
This may hurt upgrading _to_ a version which has -opt. > LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and if /etc/ld.so.hwcap is not existed, then hwcap is > disabled. The hwcap pathes are not included to search. Why does that happen? By the way, looking at the path I wonder if it has a typo in it. It looks like it's disabling hwcap if the file does NOT exist, instead of if it does exist. That would be a bug. > BTW, why is this patch so important? Can we upgrade smoothly without > this patch? Are there another way to be able to upgrade without it? > Please enlighten me... If hwcap is enabled when the version of libc6-i686 on the system doesn't match the version of libc6, very bad things can happen. We end up using the linker (/lib/ld-linux.so.2) with the optimized library (/lib/i686/libc.so.6) and they may not work together. At least I think that's what happened. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
