On 30 Jan 1999, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Obviously, this would have never been needed if old libraries had not > been replaced with (in)compatible versions, but the maintainers of > Debian have already taken this step, despite the fact that this would
Look, it was not us that decided to do this. It was the upstream maintainers, other dists and a huge combination of factors. It is not in our power to choose a different direction to solve these problems, we must have libc6 xlib called libX11.so.6 and we must have libc5 called libX11.so.6 - that is what all the other dists did, that is the default and expected compilation behavoir of xlib and it is what all the new glibc binary-only programs are using (ie netscape) If you want to say that is a dumb way then fine, but you have not proposed an alternative to solving the versioning problem and you have not proposed an alternative way to handle the requirement of identical sonames and libtool continues to perpetuate this 'bad' behavoir and makes it worse by providing no way to get around it with the standard linux ld.so Indeed libtool causes such a severe problem that if you take a libtool program, compile it on a libc5 Slackware and try to run it on -any- glibc system IT WILL NOT WORK. If you wish to make statement that binaries compiled with libtool work only on the host they were compiled for and even then only in specific conditions then fine - but that makes it totaly unsuitable for use by any of the binary distribution maker. Jason
