On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 19:25 -0500, Alan Cox wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 11:48:26PM +0000, Peter Jr. Quiring wrote: > > I tried to move a binary built on FC5 to a FC4 system and of course it > > didn't work (openssl version mismatch). So by removing static libs Fedora > > will be hurting the little guys (like me). I also know that some > > openssl is a problem area certainly. > > > functions (like dlopen()) currently do not work in static mode, but some of > > my apps don't need this functionality. I've written my own DNS client, so > > the gethostaddr() etc functions I don't need. Does anyone know if it would > > be possible to use most libraries as static and maybe just use the shared > > version of dl, or glibc? > > To be honest Fedora is aimed at being cutting edge rather than being the > proprietary high stability oriented platform. What you say is I think quite > fair in terms of C++. For C the LSB has it mostly licked, for C++ the changing > C++ ABI has been problematic. > Both the compiler ABI and the libstdc++ ABI. The former is understandable, but there's no excuse for the latter. Shared libraries using GNU C++ on ELF systems are a path to madness, and they'll stay that way until the libstdc++ people start practicing basic software maintenance skills, or glibc's ld.so gets support for DT_1_GROUP. -- Nicholas Miell <nmiell@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
