Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (1746 mails)
|< Previous||Next >|
Re: [SuSE Linux] glibc2.1 ? (wish list for 6.x :-)
- From: kukuk@xxxxxxx (Thorsten Kukuk)
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:24:38 +0200
- Message-id: <19990415102437.A13092@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, Apr 15, Ralph Clark wrote:
> Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> > I hope SuSE Linux 6.2 will work with glibc 2.1.
> This is very disappointing. I skipped SuSE 6.0 because it was (IMO) neither
> stable enough nor up-to-date enough to justify upgrading. Well, I've just
> ordered 6.1 from SuSE and it now seems they are saying it won't even support
> glibc2.1 applications?
> I can't see any justification for that. Thorsten is saying that it is difficult,
> but as we all know it is easy in principle to support an application requiring a
> non-standard library version. If the different versions can't coexist in the
> main library directories due to namespace pollution, the minority aplications
> can still name the required library directory in the environment variable
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Non-open software binaries like Communicator and Applixware
> should be supported in that way if necessary (as Oracle and Star Office are
You are wrong. glibc 2.0 and glibc 2.1 could not coexist in this way. It is
not possible. glibc 2.0 and glibc 2.1 uses the same loader: /lib/ld-linux.so.2.
If you put a glibc 2.0 loader in /lib, glibc 2.1 will not work and vice versa.
And what does you mean with Oracle and Star Office do it already ? Do you mean
the StarOffice glibc2, which could be installed in the Office5.0/lib directory ?
StarDivision warns to do this, because of the problems with ld-linux.so.2. They
tell you, that this could break all other applications except StarOffice.
> already). But SuSE should provide us with a glibc 2.1 development environment at
> least as an option that can be installed easily without breaking other
> applications. SuSE, you do want developers using your system don't you?
I think you miss the point. If it would be possible to install a glibc 2.1
on SuSE Linux 6.1, without breaking other applications, we had used glibc 2.1.
It is not possible. So how should we do that ?
And why do you wish to develop with glibc 2.1 ? If you develop with glibc 2.0,
your programs runs on current, stable Debian and RedHat versions.
And what do you wish to say to database developer ? Sorry, it's fine you have
Oracle for Linux, but it is a glibc 2.0 version, so you couldn't use
the Oracle libraries for your programs, because static glibc 2.0 libraries
are not binary compatible with glibc 2.1 ?
> BTW, it's not enough to say that we can perform this conversion ourselves if we
> want. Most people who want to write programs on Linux are relative newbies and
> would encounter more problems than they could cope with in such an exercise.
No, if they develop with glibc 2.0, their programs don't run on other Linux
distributions. Caldera 2.2 and RedHat 6.0 are not published yet. The current
Debian uses glibc 2.0. Slackware uses libc5 ?
> That's what we buy distributions for. Hell, I'm not exactly a newbie but I'd
> still balk at converting a whole distribution all by myself. Those who've tried
> it have found it very difficult.
> I wonder how many SuSE users are starting to get fed up waiting for a
> distribution that's up to date. At the rate SuSE produces updates I suppose
> you'll get 6.2 out before Red Hat 6.0 is released. But this apparent good news
> conceals an unpleasant side effect. Both SuSE and Red Hat users are provided
> with package updates while the distro version they are using is still current.
> For Red Hat users, that's about a year. But for SuSE users it's only about 3-4
> Yes folks, buy SuSE and watch your distribution go from already out-of-date to
> obsolete and completely unsupported within 6 months...
> If I'm being unfair then flame away. I'm always ready to be educated. If not,
> make your voice heard. SuSE must see more pressure from users if they are ever
> to learn what we want from them.
We know what most of our Users want: A stable Desktop system with
a working Office program and other commercial applications. And
the most developer wish a system, where they could make binaries for
all Linux platforms, not only this few who supports glibc 2.1.
Thorsten Kukuk <A HREF="http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/"><A HREF="http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/</A">http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/</A</A>> kukuk@xxxxxxx
SuSE GmbH Schanzaeckerstr. 10 90443 Nuernberg
Linux is like a Vorlon. It is incredibly powerful, gives terse,
cryptic answers and has a lot of things going on in the background.
To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@xxxxxxxx with
this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Check out the SuSE-FAQ at <A HREF="http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/"><A HREF="http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/</A">http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/</A</A>> and the
archive at <A HREF="http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html"><A HREF="http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html</A">http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html</A</A>>
|< Previous||Next >|