archaic at indy.rr.com
Wed Feb 4 12:28:08 PST 2004
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 06:39:01AM -0500, Robert Connolly wrote:
> I took a good look at the gcc-pie patch this morning. It simply adds support
> to gcc for pic w/ ld's -pie. So the relocation can be controled by the exe
> instead of the lib. The actual code is minimal and basicly represents an
> alias for pic. I wouldn't call it stable, but I wouldn't call it experimental
I was referring to the difference between glibc-20040116 and 20040128.
I'm wondering if it's needed to grab the latter as opposed to just
patching up _if_ LFS firmly sticks with the older.
And to Ryan, I'm wondering if there would be any technical reason to
_not_ use 20040128 for LFS? If LFs used that one, the decision to patch
up would be moot.
You [should] not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it
will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it
would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered
- Lyndon Johnson, former President of the U.S.
More information about the hlfs-dev