Problem roundup

[Dimitrie O. Paun]

On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:39:32PM -0500, Vincent Béron wrote:
> Now, the obvious question is how can we prevent that in the future?
> Specify a glibc version-release (we'll get users rpm --force'ing it, a
> future glibc update can (or not) break it, etc.)? Let a Wine compiled
> with epoll support run on a epoll-less system?

No, please don't specify a glibc version-release. The real fix here
is to have Wine compiled with epoll support run on a system without
epoll.

In fact, RH did not break binary compatibility. They just added
a feature in a binary compatible way. We are to blame for making
it a such a hard dependency. Windows BTW keeps adding functions
all the time, it's just that apps are careful to programmatically
link to them so they can run on older versions as well. We should
be doing that too.

-- 
Dimi.