| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, jkj(at)sco(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: PG Patch (fwd) [openserver patch followup #2] |
| Date: | 2003-07-25 09:58:18 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.56.0307251152400.1545@krusty.credativ.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Larry Rosenman writes:
> I disagree STRONGLY with what you are saying here. What harm does it do to
> add the ABILITY for a port to use a ABSOLUTE DT_SONAME?
We can discuss adding the ability, but I'm against enforcing it by
default.
> I belive that the issue is not broken systems, but broken practice.
No, the issue is precisely that someone is proposing to break reasonable,
useful practice to accomodate broken systems. No one is claiming that
absolute sonames make the system more featureful or useful. In fact, it
was admitted that it would have the reverse effect. The only argument for
absolute sonames that was brought forth was that some older systems have
security holes that can be worked around in this manner.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Larry Rosenman | 2003-07-25 12:57:38 | Re: PG Patch (fwd) [openserver patch followup #2] |
| Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2003-07-25 09:52:28 | Re: PG Patch (fwd) [openserver patch followup #2] |