On Sat, Feb 07, 2004, Scott Long wrote: > David Schultz wrote: > >Yeah, I understand how it can happen, and I've even seen it on a > >Solaris box.[1] But Scott's message seems to imply that partially > >statically linked binaries work right now, and that we need to > >keep it that way moving into the next release, even at the expense > >of potentially breaking fully dynamic binaries. Perhaps he meant > >something else. > > > > No, not at all. My point was that people are going to run into these > hideous edge cases (netscape/mozilla plugins come to mind here), and > our official stance should be to recompile the app. The important thing > with going into 5.3 is that these kinds of problems need to be very easy > to diagnose by the user, and relatively easy to fix. I don't want > something that will obfuscate the problem or create a false sense of > security. The last thing we need is for the mailing lists to get > flooded with people complaining that 5.3 isn't stable merely because > of mis-behaving libraries. I see. So rather than having it ``just work'' 95% of the time and fail in some bizarre way the other 5% of the time, the plan is to declare a flag day and force everyone to bring their binaries to a consistent state. Though I don't entirely agree with that stance, I can't dispute it given that I don't have to deal with the volume of mail re_at_ must get over problems like this. Thanks for the clarification.Received on Fri Feb 06 2004 - 23:29:50 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:42 UTC