Hi,

Sybase ASE does not run on RedHat Linux 9 or RedHat Enterprise 3.0
beta.

This is due to a decision made by RedHat to implement a poorly thought
out plan to force developers to write better code by incorporating a
"fix" into the glibc. While RedHat's intentions may have been noble,
RedHat's decision to place it within the glibc is flawed.

This patch incorrectly decides that ASE is broken (it is not).

Please write a polite message to RedHat to remove their broken "fix"
from the glibc.
http://www.redhat.com/apps/response/...t_contact.html

===================
The patch is named glibc-redhat.patch. There are
many patches in that file; in the 2.3.2 version, the one
that causes the issue has a header line that starts with:

+++ glibc-2.3.2-redhat/elf/rtld.c 28 Mar 2003 23:20:05 -0000
1.85

If that version has changed in more recent releases, you
should still be able to check the patch for the literal string:

"Incorrectly built binary which accesses errno, h_errno or
_res directly. Needs to be fixed.\n"
===================

We are tracking this under Sybase # 326398. related RedHat bug# 90002:
binary compatibility for '_res' broken in glibc 2.3.x.

Sybase is in contact with RedHat, however, RedHat needs to know the
impact that RedHat's decisions make on their customers.

Thanks,

Jason

--

Jason L. Froebe
TeamSybase http://www.teamsybase.com
Bookcrossing http://jfroebe.bookcrossing.com
HealthyPals http://www.healthypals.com

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:19:38 +0000, Jason L. Froebe wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Sybase ASE does not run on RedHat Linux 9 or RedHat Enterprise 3.0
> beta.
>
> This is due to a decision made by RedHat to implement a poorly thought
> out plan to force developers to write better code by incorporating a
> "fix" into the glibc. While RedHat's intentions may have been noble,
> RedHat's decision to place it within the glibc is flawed.
>
> This patch incorrectly decides that ASE is broken (it is not).
>
> Please write a polite message to RedHat to remove their broken "fix"
> from the glibc.
> http://www.redhat.com/apps/response/...t_contact.html
>
> ===================
> The patch is named glibc-redhat.patch. There are
> many patches in that file; in the 2.3.2 version, the one
> that causes the issue has a header line that starts with:
>
> +++ glibc-2.3.2-redhat/elf/rtld.c 28 Mar 2003 23:20:05 -0000
> 1.85
>
> If that version has changed in more recent releases, you
> should still be able to check the patch for the literal string:
>
> "Incorrectly built binary which accesses errno, h_errno or
> _res directly. Needs to be fixed.\n"
> ===================
>
> We are tracking this under Sybase # 326398. related RedHat bug# 90002:
> binary compatibility for '_res' broken in glibc 2.3.x.
>
> Sybase is in contact with RedHat, however, RedHat needs to know the
> impact that RedHat's decisions make on their customers.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason

p.s. I have created RedHat bug 102995 to cover this

Bug 102995 has been added to the database
Email sent to: jakub@redhat.com, jfroebe@froebe.net, bbrock@redhat.com

jason

--

Jason L. Froebe
TeamSybase http://www.teamsybase.com
Bookcrossing http://jfroebe.bookcrossing.com
HealthyPals http://www.healthypals.com

"Jason L. Froebe" <jfroebe@froebe.net> writes:
> Sybase ASE does not run on RedHat Linux 9 or RedHat Enterprise 3.0
> beta.
> This is due to a decision made by RedHat to implement a poorly thought
> out plan to force developers to write better code by incorporating a
> "fix" into the glibc. While RedHat's intentions may have been noble,
> RedHat's decision to place it within the glibc is flawed.

It would appear that libc.so should have defined:

__asm__(.symver xxx,__ctype_b@)

(and friends) to bind an unspecified base version of the symbol to the
correct compatibility "stuff".

The compatibility routines seem to be in the library, but they have
symbol versions on them.

So either RedHat needs to fix their compat symbol versioning, or
Sybase needs to add the correct symbol version to their libs. I vote
for RedHat playing nice and not being the kid who takes his ball and
goes home.

--
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com> Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B

"Jason L. Froebe" <jfroebe@froebe.net> writes:
>> "Incorrectly built binary which accesses errno, h_errno or
>> _res directly. Needs to be fixed.\n"

Well, this is a different bug... and it's a Sybase porting error.
Glibc has always documented that "#include <errno.h>" is the proper
way to get at "errno". "extern int errno;" is not, and never has been,
the glibc way. Read the glibc docs.

--
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com> Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B