Linked by Stefan Michalowski, M. Sc. on Thu 19th Aug 2004 08:27 UTC
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Isn't it true that these binaries can target a more specific version of an .so? You could keep them around. A good binary installer should be able to determine what libraries are needed, and the script to run the application could set the LD_LIBRARY_PATH variable to include the application's own folder, i.e. /opt/application/lib, to work.
This, of course, means bloat. But hey, there's a segment of the crowd here that wants binary compatibility.
Me, I think the way alternative architectures like AMD64 can have an entire suite of software custom-compiled as they can with Linux is awesome. To hell with binary compatibility. Just make sure we have hardware and data compatibility. Perhaps the fact that I've been running Gentoo for the past year and a half colors my perspective...
Open source portability and fixability, binary compatibility, speed - pick any two.