On Monday 24 January 2005 23.24, Edward Peschko wrote:
[ Linux interoperability in danger - libc != libc ]
Hi,
[this may be just ignorance - I only use one distro (Debian), and don't try
to mix binaries]
Before discussing solutions: Is there a survey on how bad the problem really
is? IIRC som
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 06:08:52PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 24 January 2005 05:24 pm, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > After spending *two weeks* on various ways of building glibc,
> > I'm convinced that the gnu/linux toolchain is in great danger of
> > losing interoperability.
>
> sounds
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:53:11PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:38:49PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:16:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > cool.. any chance for some syntactic sugar so me (and other
> > > users/vendors) wouldn't n
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:38:49PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:16:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > cool.. any chance for some syntactic sugar so me (and other
> > users/vendors) wouldn't need to change any of their build scripts
> > and compilation processes?
(
ps -
just to forestall a particular objection that was pointed out to me
- simply use chroot - I don't want a chroot environment. I want to
use both old binaries and new binaries seamlessly.
Ed
)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 02:24:49PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> What I'd like to do is be able to set up my LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> so that I can reference it from the point of view of the
> *executable*:
>
> setenv LD_LIBRARY_PATH "*/../lib:."
>
> Here, read "* == full path of dirname
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:10:47PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 02:24:49PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > What I'd like to do is be able to set up my LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> > so that I can reference it from the point of view of the
> > *executable*:
> >
> > setenv L
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:16:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> cool.. any chance for some syntactic sugar so me (and other
> users/vendors) wouldn't need to change any of their build scripts
> and compilation processes?
Uh, like what? That's about as simple as you can get.
r~
-
To unsubscr
On Monday 24 January 2005 05:24 pm, Edward Peschko wrote:
> After spending *two weeks* on various ways of building glibc,
> I'm convinced that the gnu/linux toolchain is in great danger of
> losing interoperability.
sounds like what you want is already being tackled by OSDL and their Binary
Regre
hey all,
Forgive the crosspost in advance, but I had an idea that touched many
areas, and would need input from multiple groups associated with the
gnu build chain, and perhaps the kernel itself.
After spending *two weeks* on various ways of building glibc,
I'm convinced that the gnu/linux too
10 matches
Mail list logo
