Re: forestalling GNU incompatibility - proposal for binary relativedynamic linking

[Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Edward Peschko wrote:
> I build glibc out of the box, ie: no patches on a SuSE machine, same
> version as the OS (glibc-2.3.3), using latest gcc(gcc-3.4.3)
> get segmentation faults every time when I try to run it against 
> system binaries. 

Why are you replacing the system glibc?  That's never a good idea.

> First, the real world situation is that I compile my own programs, libraries,
> etc - sort of a 'distribution within a distribution' which I maintain
> and make portable to win32,solaris,linux,os390, etc. I don't need
> root because I can configure the prefix, and everything is run out
> of source control. I can also control environments and migrate 
> executables from one environment to the next (dev -- test -- prod)
> after they go through enough testing.  This setup allows me to 
> version in new binaries very easily, because I can test them 
> simultaneously, and promote them when they are ready.. and thie problem 
> arose when I tried to add glibc to the list of packages I support.

There's the problem: you're trying to distribute a copy of
glibc.  Don't do that.  Glibc is an integral part of the system.

> Second - as far as the LSB standard is concerned, migrating to it 
> from incompatible glibc's is a trick in itself; you need to support 
> the legacy applications whilst you are migrating.  
>
> And hence to facilitate supporting the LSB it makes a lot of sense 
> to be able to support 2 incompatible libcs on the same machine at the 
> same time.

No.  If you build your apps to obey the LSB, you don't need
a second libc.
- Dan

--
Trying to get a job as a c++ developer?  See http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html