[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: libc upgrade vs. incompatible locales
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: libc upgrade vs. incompatible locales |
Date: |
Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:49:10 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) |
Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:
> On Sun 30 Aug 2015 21:46, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> The binary format for locales is dependent on the libc version. Over
>> the last few releases, it turned out to be compatible, but that of 2.22
>> differs from that of 2.21 (a new element was added to locale categories,
>> according to ChangeLog.)
>
> Does this amount to a binary-incompatible change to libc? I guess not
> if you make sure that if you had a statically linked binary, that you
> set LOCPATH appropriately....
>
> What if we built bootstrap binaries to statically link their LOCPATH ?
> Is that even possible?
I don’t think locale data can be embedded in binaries. Also, it’s a
good strategy to avoid rebuilding the bootstrap binaries as much as
possible, as it intuitively suggests that a Thompson attack is unlikely.
Ludo’.
- Why does glibc provide bash?, Andy Wingo, 2015/08/10
- Re: Why does glibc provide bash?, Mark H Weaver, 2015/08/11
- Re: Why does glibc provide bash?, Andy Wingo, 2015/08/11
- Re: Why does glibc provide bash?, Ludovic Courtès, 2015/08/18
- Re: Why does glibc provide bash?, Ludovic Courtès, 2015/08/20
- Re: Why does glibc provide bash?, Ludovic Courtès, 2015/08/29
- libc upgrade vs. incompatible locales, Ludovic Courtès, 2015/08/30
- Re: libc upgrade vs. incompatible locales, Andy Wingo, 2015/08/31
- Re: libc upgrade vs. incompatible locales,
Ludovic Courtès <=
- Re: libc upgrade vs. incompatible locales, Andy Wingo, 2015/08/31