[mythtv-users] Undefined symbol error when running CVS

[Shawn]

By the way, the next time someone tries to help out, and you decide that
they're obviously wrong to the extent of absurdity, why don't you
provide some analysis as to why you think this is the case, like I just
did. Otherwise you're just being insulting.

On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 16:03 -0600, Shawn wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 11:40 -0800, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > I believe "That link error crap" as you so eloquently put it, is CVS myth 
> > being built against 0.16 Myth libraries. It has nothing to do with the 
> > compiler. You're closer this time around with the (again eloquent) "binary 
> > incompatible shit lying around", since it is a library from 0.16 that isn't 
> > compatible with the latest CVS.
> 
> Here's the deal: If the myth program compile-time links successfully but
> cannot run-time link successfully, it's binary incompatible, most likely
> due to compiler or binutils. You may have written a document, but I'm
> fairly certain you're wrong. When libraries are incompatible in such a
> way as you say, one of a number of things happen:
>      1. The program fails to compile-time link due to trying to pass the
>         wrong number or type of arguments to a given function
>      2. The program fails to compile-time link due to trying to pass
>         seemingly compatibly structured data (type, number of args, etc)
>         but the data itself makes the function barf.
>      3. The function returns incompatible type and compile-time link
>         fails
>      4. The function returns seemingly compatibly structured data (type,
>         etc) but the data itself makes the calling code barf.
> In other words, it probably won't compile, but if it does, it's image
> will likely at least load into memory after /lib/ld-linux.so.2 is done,
> and at some point it will probably segfault.
> 
> I'm getting weary of thinly veiled insults about how I speak, after
> having neither insulted you, nor your methods. Do you speak to everyone
> this way?
> 
> > Because I know they guy's system a helluva lot better than you do. He put it 
> > together following a document *I* wrote, thank you. And Isaac most definitely 
> > has a right to act superior, given the fact he's the lead developer on the 
> > project.
> 
> You and Isaac are of course both superior in your areas of expertise.
> You are not, however, infallible or beyond question, especially when you
> assert superiority apparently outside of your depth. I'll admit I may be
> wrong despite my years and experience, and that appears to be the
> difference between you and I.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/attachments/20041111/1d9205a4/attachment.pgp