On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 18:35 +0100, Anne Wilson wrote: > On Tuesday 11 April 2006 18:24, Styma, Robert E (Robert) wrote: > > > > The statements you made above are all true. The result of the whole mess > > is that the user of the dll may end up (depending upon the order things are > > loaded, (note your mention of he dllcache)accessing a dll which is > > incompatible with the calls being made. You actually can get yourself into > > the same mess with shared objects, but the UNIX approach helps you avoid > > getting the a mismatched copy. > > > And the whole of this sub-thread arose from a statement that linux is plagued > by shared code, whereas windows is not. > Exactly! and the discussion has just shown the fallacy of that claim. Multiple versions that are path dependent, as well as _dllcache dependent. LOL > Anne > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
