cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h

Yar Tikhiy yar at
Fri Aug 24 22:06:41 PDT 2007

On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 06:25:17PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >Not to pick on anyone here but Yar did something that works,
> >why exactly are we not allowing him to use the tools provided
> >for this exact purpose and instead making him do convoluted
> >workarounds?
> >
> >I mean seriously, so we have a versioned symbol that could
> >possibly be avoided by a lot of hard work and magic which will
> >probably fail for a bunch of users....
> >
> > why not just use what works?
> Please, enough of this "it works, so why not?".  We didn't always
> have symbol versioning, and we have solved these problems before
> without it.

Before the latex condom came into wide use, people had had to resort
to rather funny things for birth control and protection.

> There seems to be an inherent problem with our
> build system, and the LD_LIBRARY_PATH trick seems to make sense
> to me, or building and installing the install tools as static
> to avoid problems like this.

No doubt our build system is far from ideal, but, according to
various discussions, there are more reasons for that than just
developers' being lazy and prefering quick'n'dirty fixes.

> I never added symbol versioning to libc in order to solve
> -current upgrade problems.  Sure, you're free to use it that
> way, but it would not make me very happy ;-)

You put it as though symbol versioning is your area of interest and
you just don't want any intruders to tamper with it.  It wouldn't
have seemed so if there had been a well-defined policy on symbol
versioning usage somewhere on


More information about the cvs-src mailing list