On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:04:40AM +0200, Luca Barbieri wrote: > On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 23:56, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote: > > > On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 23:28, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote: > > > > > Why? > > > > > Can't we just use it in Debian? > > > > > > > > Are you mad? What happens if the ELF format or gnu upstream start using > > > > that > > > > value for something else? > > > We notify them of the problem. > > > Furthermore the patch can be immediately sent to the glibc maintainers. > > > > This is sort of like asking your wife if she did not like the new color you > > paint*ed* the entire house with. > But that field has at least 32 bits and anyway there are other place > where extensions could be put so it's just a matter of having them put > the extension in another place. > > So yes, it is equivalent to declaring ownership of bit 0 of the > DT_SYMBOLIC value but I don't think this will piss anyone off especially > given the comment from GNU endorsing an extension like this.
The comment is old. I don't think that attitude is current. I suspect that Ulrich will not look kindly at this sort of local linker hackery. And, yet again, you're ignoring the technical implementation/maintenance burden of such a patch. There will be _NO_ local linker hacks of this nature in Debian. Drop it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer