On Wednesday, 20th December 2000, "Donald J . Maddox" wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 10:14:09AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 11:15:55PM +1000, Stephen McKay wrote:
>> > Correcting slightly for your slightly off assumption: The X11 libs were
>> > probably built on a 3.x box. Their problem is that being newer than
>> > libc.so.2.2 (or was it libc.so.3.0) they use ___error but libc does not
>> > supply it. My patches to rtld-aout (that first appeared in FreeBSD
>> > 3.0) supply ___error in this case. This is the only full fix for this
>> > situation.
>> Why is not changing the XFree86-aoutlibs port to offer libs built on
>> 2.2.x not the right fix?
>I was under the impression that this was already the case... The libs
>in the XFree86-aoutlibs port ARE from 2.2.x. My problem was that I
>was using libs built on 3.x.
(I think I can save a lot of typing by replying to this message. I'm just
about to leave town.)
My whole point is that generating a.out binaries and libraries didn't stop
the instant that 3.0 hit the streets. To support the mixture of old binary
plus new library you need a hacked ld.so. We have to supply it somehow,
or simply say we don't care about certain binaries dying with obscure
error messages. This XFree86-aoutlibs vs libs built on 3.x example supports
I can't reconcile your naming convention (ie compat22 bits originated on
a 2.2.x box) with my version (compat22 is used to support 2.2.x binaries).
I'm also not afraid that a binary generated on 4.2 would have hidden
defects. I'm more worried that one generated on 2.2.x would have defects
we've forgotten about.
If you don't mind pausing the whole argument for about 4 days, I can
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message