From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <44465806.3050203@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:32:22 -0400 From: Chad Dougherty User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Macintosh/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Install from CD fails References: <3e1162e60604181454l35bd6917v8a6169c6befd9baa@mail.gmail.com> <8494fb45ef78b3566627c1425c5441b7@coraid.com> <3e1162e60604190717m31dac0bcrff06f7decea9c28a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60604190717m31dac0bcrff06f7decea9c28a@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3f8d62b0-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 David Leimbach wrote: > This is definitely a point of view I've not heard before, regarding > suddenly changed but now untested binaries. However let me say that I > have experienced this problem before. > yeah, same here. i agree with Brantley's original point but one counterpoint i can think of is that many (most?) of the bugs fixed in shared libs fall into in the "just wrong, wrong, wrong and any application that used this was just lucky to have worked in the first place if it even worked at all" category. breaking one program in order to fix the other 49 that were just lucky to have worked in the first place could still be considered a win. however, i'm not advocating shared libs in plan 9. the issue is made pretty much moot by having a sane and reliable build system. build the new bins and move on with your life...