epoll, LSB (was: Re: Problem roundup)
mike at navi.cx
Mon Nov 22 11:21:36 CST 2004
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:58 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
> For the record, I checked, and Red Hat 9's lsb-1.3 package
> simply made ld-lsb.so.1 a symlink to ld-linux.so.2,
I'm pretty sure all distros do that. I've never heard of any LSB compliant
distro using a custom linker to override upstream choices, even though
it's theoretically possible. I suspect most distro developers just don't
care - if they cared about stability they would not have shipped NPTL as
the default at all, for any app. On a desktop system at any rate there's
little to no benefit for existing software. The performance improvements
are only really an issue for servers.
> so that version of their lsb environment does seem to use
> NPTL. Probably they figured they'd do something fancier
> if they got any complaints, and since nobody was shipping
> LSB-1.3 apps, they never had to.
There's that catch-22 again. No LSB apps == LSB has no influence.
> It'll be interesting to see if LSB-2.0 apps actually get
> deployed... having an argument about hypothetical pros and
> cons is a bit sterile.
Well, they aren't really hypothetical. The cons of todays LSB is
I believe why there aren't any LSB apps out there today. I hope it goes
somewhere but I'm not holding my breath, not any more.
More information about the wine-devel