Hi,
Right ! it should be based on GLIBC major version number rather than
the suggestion i386_rhel[45], being fair to other distribution as well :-)
~avinesh
On Jan 2, 2008 5:21 PM, Derrick Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Historical accident. It should be based on the GLIBC version, but it's
> not.
>
> On Jan 2, 2008 5:14 PM, Avinesh Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I want to know why the sysnames for Linux platform are named diffrently
> > than it is done for other platforms. On Linux we have sysnames,
> > i386_linux24,
> > i386_linux26 etc which is named after kernel version whereas the same is
> >
> > done after OS version like rs_aix52, rs_aix53, sun4x_59, sun4x_510 etc
> > for
> > other platforms.
> >
> > According to the AFS semantics, the binaries under a sysname should be
> > able to run on all systems with the same sysname, if I am right.
> >
> > However, considering Linux here, OS versions can get significant changes
> > over time and we may not be advanced to 2.8.x kernel. So in this case,
> > sysname would still be same 'i386_linux26' but the binaries may not run
> > across.
> >
> > Considering the changes done in ELF format replacing SHT_HASH section
> > by SHT_GNU_HASH, the binaries built (with default options) on RHEL-5
> > would not
> > work on RHEL-4, both happen to have 2.6.x kernel.
> >
> >
> > So If a user builds his program "bigtest" on RHEL5 and puts it under
> > @sys area
> > and tries to run the same from RHEL4, which would point to the same
> > binary, and
> > this would not work.
> >
> > As of now, the RHEL-5 user should make use of linker option
> > "-Wl,--hash-style=sysv"
> > if he plans to put under @sys directory.
> >
> > Please correct me if I am wrong.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > ~avinesh
> >
>
>
