From xemacs-m  Thu Jul  3 12:53:12 1997
Received: from firewall1.Lehman.COM (firewall.Lehman.COM [192.147.65.66])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA01641
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 12:53:12 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from smap@localhost) by firewall1.Lehman.COM (8.8.5/8.6.12) id NAA17867; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 13:53:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unknown(146.127.39.20) by firewall1 via smap (V1.3)
	id tmp017823; Thu Jul  3 13:53:03 1997
Received: from cfdevx1.lehman.com by relay.lehman.com (4.1/LB-0.6)
	id AA08024; Thu, 3 Jul 97 13:53:02 EDT
Received: from localhost by cfdevx1.lehman.com (4.1/Lehman Bros. V1.6)
	id AA04163; Thu, 3 Jul 97 13:53:00 EDT
Message-Id: <9707031753.AA04163@cfdevx1.lehman.com>
Reply-To: Rick Campbell <rickc@lehman.com>
X-Windows: graphics hacking :: roman numerals : sqrt(pi)
Organization: Lehman Brothers Inc.
From: Rick Campbell <rickc@lehman.com>
To: georgn@canada.sun.com
Cc: XEmacs Beta List <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: Solaris dynamics? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Jul 1997 11:10:38 EDT."
             <199707031510.LAA08224@verve.canada.sun.com> 
X-Pgp-Version: 2.6.2
X-Pgp-Signed: iQCVAwUBM7vm9VtTztlqB385AQFSDgQAnCU3uvl+Q+V7L1FcLZE5dPMxb0536WG/
	      dkBwigMSOYFVsMCTnM+6MH06toO7maCet9X5anBb/TP+KXlLa5amC4tG4QZgi3Xv
	      eu9QyLtv+4nefooKTvxS7ekk16ntcZBPsldkgDxWw3zJmtK92BqezXjJcjZXCVNu
	      HUUH0CVhVFY=
	      =OT5d
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 13:52:59 -0400
Sender: rickc@lehman.com

    Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 11:10:38 -0400
    From: Georg Nikodym <georgn@canada.sun.com>
    
    >>>>> "RC" == Rick Campbell <rickc@lehman.com> writes:
    
     RC> The caveats here are interesting in and of themselves, but it
     RC> simply amazes me that now the *recommended* mechanism is to try
     RC> to find the oldest environment possible to do your builds.  This
     RC> should be an indication that maybe this concept isn't really
     RC> worked out very well as yet.
    
    This has _always_ been the recommended practice.  It is unfortunate
    that this hasn't been communicated as well as it might be.

Maybe for dynamicly linked stuff.  But that's precisely the point that
I'm trying to make.  When your technology creates a situation that
encourages the use of the oldest versions in sight, something is
wrong.
    
    You are not prevented from static linking with anything but the system 
    libraries as shipped by Sun.

And if the exception were eliminated, I wouldn't have a problem.
There is no good reason for tying developers hands in this manner.

    However, the contortions required to make that software work and my
    resultant irritation are not the fault of Sun.

On other systems, I don't have the problem.  Sun has very
intentionally been promoting a relatively new (in the grand scheme of
things) technology to the point where they now actively prevent the
use of tried-and-true mechanisms.  One result is that it is much
easier to build and distribute programs that won't run correctly.
When you make it easier, it will happen more, i. e. it sure the hell
is Sun's fault.
    
     RC> Hmmm....  A lot of the machines at my site are still running 2.3.
    
    So here we have the root cause for the failure of the XEmacs for
    Solaris 2.4 binary.  If that binary were for MS Windows 3.1 would you
    attempt to run it on 2.11?  And when it didn't work, would you be
    directing your frustration at Microsoft?  (The motivations for
    organizations to cling to old versions of system software is a
    slightly different discussion.)

Unless the software clearly relies on a new feature of the latest
version of the OS, yes, it would run, and yes, I would be directing
some amount of frustration at them.  If it was software that would
have run fine if it were built when the compiler was running on the
old OS, but the mere fact that I ran the exact same compiler on a
newer version of the OS broke deliver to the old OS, I'd think that
Microsoft was handling things as badly as Sun.  Since this statement
sounds too much like I'm a Microsoft fan, let me reiterate that I
really, strongly, dislike what Microsoft has become.  I avoid all of
their products to the greatest degree that I can.  Sun has merely
annoyed the hell out of me with recent wrong-headed decisions.

Anyway, my point was that Martin's choice of ``the oldest OS version
around'' isn't really all that old.  However, he shouldn't have to be
worrying about such things.  He should be able to build on 2.6.  In
fact, as was brought out at the start of this conversation, the
executable *does* work on older versions -- you have to lie about the
names of the dynamic libraries, but once you do, things work.  The
stumbling block is the way that the underlying mechanism works, that
is, the part that's Sun's doing.

     RC>  Unfortunately, under Solaris, it seems like I've got to
     RC> be running the oldest thing available so that my users can
     RC> actually run what I build.
    
    This is a real problem.  And an annoying one.  And not unique to
    Solaris.  The good news is that there is work in this area.  The bad
    news is that you don't have it yet...

And yet, Sun is still willing to disable the solution that doesn't
have this annoying problem.  As I've mentioned before, I don't think
that supporting and promoting dynamic libraries is bad, the REALLY,
REALLY, TERRIBLE decision that Sun has collectively made is to make it
hard or impossible for those who choose to do so, to link statically.
This is really the full thrust of my complaint.  Everything else is a
side issue.

If Sun would simply continue to allow what is known to work, I would
not be faulting them.  Period.
    
    BTW, do we still support Lemacs 19.4?  I thought not.

Are we a big company with big customers still using Lemacs 19.4?
I thought not.

			Rick

