Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:25:15 +0000 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, brian@Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: The whole libc thing. Message-ID: <200102160225.f1G2PFw09227@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> of "Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:04:45 MST." <200102151604.f1FG4jW62156@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[.....]
> Step 5: <in a while, assuming that 3 and 4 work>
> Bump the major version of libc and start using something like
> peter's change.
Step 5.1:
Bump the version number on all libraries that don't contain
a dependency on libc but contain __sF references.
And I'm sure there are other horrors there...
For example:
cd /usr/local/lib
for f in lib*.so.*
do
objdump -x $f | fgrep NEEDED | fgrep -q libc.so. ||
nm $f | fgrep -wq __sF && echo $f
done
Produces a list of 23 libraries (out of 54) on my laptop :-( Tell me
if I'm wrong, but I believe these libraries contain no indication of
what libc they want, but may be mucking about with stdio internals...
I think step 5 can't happen 'till we declare declare a D-day after
which old binaries and libraries just won't work.
I also can't think of any way to soften the blow. At the end of the
day, there are binaries out there that not only know the size of sF,
but they also play with the internals directly. Binary support of
this without some currently-unused-internal-changed-to-a-pointer
kludge is unlikely AFAICT.
> Warner
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>; <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102160225.f1G2PFw09227>