>I understand this is policy -- specifically policy.text.gz, 4.2. This policy >makes perfect sense for a.out shared libraries (where were all the rage when >this policy was written). Does this policy still make sense? Actually, this is a bit backwards. Linux a.out shared libraries never supported PIC, and this was the major reason for abandoning them and moving to ELF. The lack of position independence meant that in order to make a library shareable, it always had to live at a fixed address, which in turn necessitated a central registry of shared libraries and their addresses, plus a fairly convoluted procedure for actually building the things. Other operating systems, like NetBSD, used PIC code with a.out libraries quite successfully. Because of that they had much less pressure to switch to ELF. p.
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. Philip Blundell
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. Ben Collins
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. Yann Dirson
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. Erik Andersen
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. Ben Collins
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. Philip Blundell
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. Erik Andersen
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. Ben Collins
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. Erik Andersen
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. Ben Collins
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. Philip Blundell
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. Philip Blundell
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. Theodore Tso
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. Philip Blundell
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. Theodore Tso
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. David Whedon
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. Adam Di Carlo
- Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21. Yann Dirson