Julien Laganier writes: > It's not the problem of the OS or its ABI compatibility > if you insist on linking software compiled on the new > OS with outdated libraries supporting the old OS.
It doesn't matter much whose fault it is; it fails, it fails "silently" (underlying attempts at interface versioning won't help this specific problem), and it blows away the application. > It's the probelm of your third party software vendor: > You should just ask straight to him for new versions > of these libraries compiled on the new system. Why should we require that third party software vendors recompile in order to have their software continue working on new systems? Isn't avoiding that problem exactly the point of having ABI compatibility? We end up in the strange position where old third-party applications continue to work, but old third-party libraries may fail depending on the vintage of the application that uses them. I'm not sure I understand why ABI compatibility should extend to "applications" alone and not specifically to libraries. Are libraries less interesting or easier to recompile? (It seems to me that a new "AI_EXTPRESENT" entry in ai_flags would do the trick, though, in all cases other than attempted structure copies of 'addrinfo'.) -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
