[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request
From: |
Jeroen Dekkers |
Subject: |
Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord) |
Date: |
Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:11:49 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.27i |
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 09:58:17AM +0100, Oystein Viggen wrote:
> * [Jeroen Dekkers]
>
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 09:59:14PM +0100, Farid Hajji wrote:
> >> All in all, binary compatibility is a nice thing to have.
> >
> > If it's only used for running non-free software I disagree.
>
> I can see no other reason. As you said, if it's free, we just recompile
> it. Then we can remove PATH_MAX and MAXHOSTNAMELEN dependencies, too.
>
> > The only
> > really reason I see is that you can have the same Debian packages for
> > GNU/Hurd and GNU/Linux, which would same some few GBs in the
> > archive. For this the ABI has to be completely the same which still
> > has some issues.
>
> For complete binary compatibility, I should think you also need complete
> feature compatibility. This means either enhancing Linux to support
> things like translators, dumbing down the Hurd, or providing fake stubs
> in the Linux libc. None of these are very likely.
Why? POSIX programs use the glibc ABI, which is almost the same on
GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd. Programs could use the proc filesystem and
would have dependency on procfs-linux-2.4 then.
Jeroen Dekkers
--
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: jeroen@openprojects
pgpKDnPF0gh56.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, (continued)
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, Roland McGrath, 2002/03/25
- GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Jeroen Dekkers, 2002/03/25
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Wolfgang Jährling, 2002/03/25
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Jeff Bailey, 2002/03/25
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/03/25
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Oystein Viggen, 2002/03/25
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Jeroen Dekkers, 2002/03/25
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Farid Hajji, 2002/03/25
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Jeroen Dekkers, 2002/03/25
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord), Oystein Viggen, 2002/03/26
- Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord),
Jeroen Dekkers <=
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, Roland McGrath, 2002/03/25
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, Neal H Walfield, 2002/03/27
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/03/27
- Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/03/14