On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Karl J. Runge wrote:
> Boy this is really awful. IM(ns)HO, one should *never* change libc
> incompatibly. It is OK to add new features to libc and other basic
> libraries, but one should never have it break existing apps (unless,
> say, you are bringing in a new bin format and have zero installed base:
> e.g. a.out -> ELF circa 1995).
Linux has a lot of strengths, but binary compatibility isn't one of them.
Every major upgrade to libc has resulted in severe incompatibility headaches.
Most kernel releases are not compatible with modules from another release.
Heck, they are often not even compatible with modules from the *same* release.
Libraries built with one release of GCC often won't work with executables
built with another.
The problem is, as I call it from my armchair, that the developers of Open
Source/Free Software projects are naturally working in an Open Source
environment where things are being rebuilt a lot. What's a few more rebuilds
to make such-and-such a program work, when you're already recompiling the
world on a weekly basis?
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| "Come not between the Dragon and his wrath." |
| - William Shakespeare, _King_Lear_, I.i.124 |
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
