>>>>> On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:48:49 +0200, >>>>> "MEM" == "Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MEM> Can you come up with a real case of broken compatibility that such a MEM> change could cause? I must be missing something really obvious, MEM> because I can't (c.f. my previous mails). I'm not sure but for example if there are some modules depends on RTLD_GLOBAL, then we have patched glib2.0, such modules won't work on Debian. >> To another solution, if there are an architecture which has broken >> RTLD_GLOBAL on Debian, I'll apply a patch to stop the glib2.0 build. MEM> There isn't. Not even the vapourware architectures, I dare to guess. Yes, *now*. and we can't promise dlopen isn't definitely broken. if all you're afraid a compatibility, I think we should do that to prevent the building with broken glibc. MEM> I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. Do you mean that RH has a patch MEM> that solves this problem which /does not/ involve patching glib but MEM> gdk-pixbuf? If that exists and works, well, yes, that's acceptable, MEM> too. Yes, Red Hat did that to gdk-pixbuf, not glib1.2. that's one of what Owen proposed. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200208/msg00669.html Regards, -- Akira TAGOH : [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Japan GNOME Users Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] : [EMAIL PROTECTED] / GNOME-DB Project : [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Red Hat, Inc. : [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Debian Project
