X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=sSUGwn8c6lHbFXt3/nEO1Ir3yOd+t6aGTy229rIRvnUDwQUglOyxIBGPFWZgeUZvnnj1FVGLF22Ufq8uF5S9cdF1SXW7qixh3bjx/KLTsuII+s1yD5lHOjAWzquFwcRiYUd1vadjK2Po0GmtuIVbcrrXsnkpONs9Y3TX/qPTofQ=  ;
Message-ID: <20060512170530.58482.qmail@web42210.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 10:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Daniel Borca <dborca AT yahoo DOT com>
Subject: Re: DJGPP ELF
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <20060512104217.D2491@dynamite.narpes.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

--- "A. Wik" <djgpp-l AT aw DOT gs> wrote:

> As nice as it may be to avoid the duplication of code
> implemented in DLLs, and upgrade one library file rather
> than a thousand executables, let's not forget the problems.
> Such as attempting to take advantage of the ease of
> upgrades, and breaking large numbers of binaries, some of
> which may be critical, requiring a restart with a bootdisk.
> While I can't imagine a DOS system becoming so dependent
> on DLLs, it's easy to do with Linux.   At other times, the

Yes, the dreaded issue #8.15 on DJGPP FAQ.  Perhaps they're
right.  But that didn't stopped 99% of the OSes out there.
Ultimately, it all boils down to the responsibility of the
developers.  And, most important, the responsibility of
each user.  And the freedom to ignore the warnings. :)

I, myself, am Linux-borne for a few years now; and I always
avoid upgrading packages for exactly the same reason.  However,
sometimes I trust the developers of my distro of choice, and
this particular OS never failed me.

Upgrading a shared library is easier.  And, yes, it is easier
to screw things up (but that doesn't mean that statically linked
applications can't betray you).  Then, it works both ways; look
at the bright side: fixing things is also easier.

You are still free to link against libc.a (ELF) and leave
others the chance to link dynamically.

Last, but not least, I mentioned versioning.  Being the lazy
guy that I am, I haven't implemented it, nor did I tried to
fully understand it:
http://people.redhat.com/drepper/symbol-versioning

> conflicts are subtle enough that the X11 server will run,
> only to crash without warning in a few hours or days,
> having generously given you the time to open a few dozen
> windows with various amounts of unsaved work...

That's unforgivable. ;)  You should save often.  ;)


Regards,
Daniel Borca

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com