This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: openoffice 1.0.1 vs glibc cvs

From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
To: Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot med dot uc dot edu>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:18:25 -0800
Subject: Re: openoffice 1.0.1 vs glibc cvs
References: <200211151814.NAA61299@bromo.msbb.uc.edu> <200211151908.OAA64139@bromo.msbb.uc.edu>

Jack Howarth wrote:
> In any case, I don't see why everyone
> is rushing to make __libc_wait and __libc_waitpid GLIBC_PRIVATE if
> they are only exported for runtime resolution and not for linking.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Because this is where the symbol belong.  Broken programs got a long
enough period to adjust.  They (and their users) don't deserve any petty.

- -- 
- --------------.                        ,-.            444 Castro Street
Ulrich Drepper \    ,-----------------'   \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
Red Hat         `--' drepper at redhat.com `---------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE91UiG2ijCOnn/RHQRArXqAKDKh/SLSg6rZ3o6vuU4RmM3LCR7IACfVi+T
lQbZn4OF3f1Nn/h+8SnioFs=
=dYC2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Follow-Ups:
- Re: openoffice 1.0.1 vs glibc cvs
  - From: Jeff Chua

References:
- Re: openoffice 1.0.1 vs glibc cvs
  - From: Jack Howarth
- Re: openoffice 1.0.1 vs glibc cvs
  - From: Jack Howarth

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]