Re: ELF (Important, espc. f/ developers)
> >Craig, I'll admit that linux-gcc is not very useful to get help
> >with the transition to ELF. However, linux-gcc is ment for the
> >developers only, i.e. those who really, really know what they are
> >doing. For normal users, it is better to wait for the standard
> >distributions, like Debian, to switch to ELF.
>
> Unfortunately, I fall in the middle. I don't use canned distributions,
> but I'm not a hard-core developer, either.
This mailing list deals with Debian, and any messages concerning ELF
deal with the Debian ELF packages or the Debian transition to ELF,
unless stated otherwise explicitely.
If you have a problem with the Debian ELF packages on a Debian system,
please post them to debian-user. If you have trouble with ELF on
a non-Debian system, you can still post them to debian-user as far
as I'm concerned, and I'll still try to see if I can help.
I merely ask you to state clearly in that case that it is not
a problem with a "normal" setup, to prevent confusion for other
users.
> >Debian has not switched to ELF yet, but we are testing and
> >if necessary patching sources to compile with the ELF utils.
> >The Debian ELF utils are explicitly packaged as not to interfere
> >with the a.out utils, making a smooth transition possible.
>
> That sounds like more ELF blue-sky to me. The line is something
> to the effect of ELF will be transparent, painless, help you in all these
> great ways, etc., etc. However, the current reality is that it just ain't
> so. As I have found out, the transition is currently *NOT* painless.
... when using Your True Mixture System.
I'm not claiming the transition to ELF will go smooth all the way,
but I am claiming that many of the developers are cooperating in making
the transition as smooth as possible.
I've not heard any horror stories about debian's ELF packages yet.
> >Could you please indicate whether you used the Debian ELF packages,
> >or followed the "move_to_elf" document, or used another transition
> >path?
>
> Followed move_to_elf, as much as one can. It's pretty terse.
You are basing your transition on a document that was intended for
GCC/libc developers, and has unfortunately been presented to others
as the True Way.
> >My system is 75% ELF (25% is X, for which I don't have the space to
> >recompile it). It is using the ELF tools as prepackaged by David Engel
> >(ftp.debian.org/debian/project/experimental/elf*).
>
> I've never claimed that there don't exist working ELF systems,
> I said that I've never actually seen one.
If you have the diskspace available, use Debian to make a minimal
system for compiling, install the debian ELF packages and
start recompiling from source. You will have problems with some
packages (in the base only ext2fsutils, as far as I can remember
(a patch by Remy Card is available from ftp.ibp.fr)).
If then you experience horrors, please elaborate on them on
debian-user. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating", or something
like that.
> >Many of the problems people blame on "ELF" are actually problems
> >with
> >- the newer version of gcc. gcc-2.7.0 adheres to the newest C++ standard,
> > resulting in a changed scope for variables and possibly other changes.
>
> I avoid C++ like the plague, myself. Every version n-1 of g++ is
> horribly broken, while every version n is supposed to be fixed and great.
> This has been going on for quite a while.
I don't deny this. But it is a fact of life that some packages are
written in C++.
> >- a bleeding edge libc. The Debian elf-libc package is 5.0.9, which
> > has proven to be very stable. Libc is in a state of flux w.r.t.
> > the incorporation of threads and ncurses.
>
> I was using 5.0.9.
Binaries or did you compile it yourself?
> >- deprecated C code, e.g. "extern char* malloc".
>
> Does this look deprecated to you:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> main()
> {
> printf("hello, world\n");
> }
>
> [K&R II, p7]
It doesn't.
> It'll compile on my system, but the linker spews unresolved
> references to __strtol_internal at me.
Which 'ld' is called by gcc? It could be that it is calling the old
ld for a.out. Try examining the .o files and your library using 'nm'.
This way you can find which library should be used.
Is your /etc/ld.so.conf set correctly?
> Maybe it's just me. I've come to believe that Murphy's spirit lives
> on inside my system the way wierd things happen sometimes. But if I followed
> the instructions and end up with something that can't compile the infamous
> "Hello, World" program, then it seems to me that something is very wrong.
Try the ELF-HowTo, for documentation that is a lot more accessible for
normal users.
> At the least, the transition is still not painless enough that I think it
> is appropriate to ask that every package maintainer (getting back to how
> this relates to Debian) install the ELF tools on their systems and start
> making ELF versions of things.
I think it is appropriate to ask the developers to test their packages
with the ELF utils, if only for the fact that they contain a more
up to date compiler, capable of generating more and better warning
messages.
I am not requesting the developers to do away with a.out.
As Bruce and Ian M. have stated, a stable and reliable a.out Debian
release is the first priority.
But after that, we will have to switch to ELF, since a.out is not
supported anymore for the newer C library. My request is that
package maintainers start anticipating this switch now, in order
to make it as smooth as possible for the users.
> I think it is currently far more prudent to
> continue making Debian a.out wrt packages and to focus the attention on
> making a hybrid a.out/ELF development environment for Debian that installs
> and *works* without any surprises, THEN ask the developers to start using
> that environment.
I'm not asking for a hybrid a.out/ELF system for users, but for a
stable a.out system, whose sources are as ready for ELF as we can
achieve now.
Greetings,
Ray
--
POPULATION EXPLOSION Unique in human experience, an event which happened
yesterday but which everyone swears won't happen until tomorrow.
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Reply to: