On 01 Jun 2015 09:51, Christopher Head wrote: > On May 31, 2015 7:33:28 AM PDT, Alexis Ballier wrote: > >I'm not sure what's best for every one: > >1. Push hundreds of patches upstream to add lfs flags; > >2. Apply your patch to our glibc ebuilds, fix the corner cases, and go > > back to glibc upstream with these data. > > If the changes are made to glibc, would these be under a new symbol version > for ABI compatibility, or just be changes to headers to make > _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 the default? If not, what about binary software? Not > saying you haven’t considered the relevant issues; I just haven’t seen binary > software brought up on this list yet.
regardless of what the headers export as a default, glibc's ABI would not change. the CPPFLAGS merely control which set of symbols are used. any existing binary packages would continue to operate the same way they always have. -mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
