Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The full description of it is in the logs of bug#35049.
It's a bug in libc6-dev which has since been fixed. If you look at the
file libc_nonshared.a in slink, you'll find that the offending symbols
didn't have the .hidden flag while they do now.
> T
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 07:47:26PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> As to the bash breakage, please quote the number. Thanks.
The full description of it is in the logs of bug#35049.
To get back to the policy proposal, I do think there are libraries
that should not have shared versions. Namely, ones t
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 09:20:48AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > and neither is libc6 because some parts of it can only be linked
>> > statically.
>>
>> Which ones?
> /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a. It contains
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 09:20:48AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > and neither is libc6 because some parts of it can only be linked
> > statically.
>
> Which ones?
/usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a. It contains atexit() and a lot of
stat() functions. This has ca
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:35:30AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > and neither is libc6 because some parts of it can only be linked
> > > statically.
> >
> > Which ones?
>
> nss modules come to mind.
You mean:
$ l
Previously Herbert Xu wrote:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > and neither is libc6 because some parts of it can only be linked
> > statically.
>
> Which ones?
nss modules come to mind.
Wichert.
--
_
/ Nothi
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This means that the current GCC 2.95.x package is not conforming to
> the policy because it doesn't provide a shared version of libgcc.a,
It's fixed in GCC 3.0.
> and neither is libc6 because some parts of it can only be linked
> statically.
Which one
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In section 11.2, it is mandated that every library provides a static
> > and a shared version. I don't think this is appropriate, as there
> > are programming languages whose shared library support is still
> > evolving.
>
> > The whole discussion in t
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.4.0
> Severity: wishlist
> In section 11.2, it is mandated that every library provides a static
> and a shared version. I don't think this is appropriate, as there
> are programming languages whose shared library s
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.4.0
Severity: wishlist
In section 11.2, it is mandated that every library provides a static
and a shared version. I don't think this is appropriate, as there
are programming languages whose shared library support is still
evolving.
The whole discussion in thi
10 matches
Mail list logo
