Re: VMware (was Re: current bind version)

[David Sommerseth <dazo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 25/02/11 14:52, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 2/25/11 4:48 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> >
>>> >> Anyway, my point was that the fabled library ABI stability of RHEL turned out
>>> >> not to work for VMware Server 2.0.   But CentOS did come through with
>>> >> bug-for-bug compatibility as promised, causing the same crashing behavior after
>>> >> the same minor-rev update.
>>> >>
>> >
>> > The ABI is not for things like VMWare when they screw up their updates
> This was not a VMWare update.  It was a glibc update - and the breakage was 
> dramatic, not just the slow memory leak someone else mentioned.

I don't know this case specifically.  But generally speaking, there are
some cases where applications are built depending on a bug in a library to
work properly.  When that bug gets fixed in the library, the application
breaks.

ABI doesn't ensure that all applications will work forever.  It only
assures that the application binary interface doesn't change.  That means
that arguments being passed through library functions does not change, that
functions does not disappear, looses or gains more arguments or that the
return type from functions doesn't change.  It does not guarantee that the
behaviour of the functions doesn't change, if the behaviour was wrong to
start with.


kind regards,

David Sommerseth

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos