Re: glibc-compat ???
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote:
> > Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs.
> > Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros
> > have?
> They're both libc 6.0 -- how would ld.so know which one you wanted?
> Any apps which run on 6.0 and not 6.1 are broken and should be fixed.
Some things changed from 2.0 to 2.1 so that non broken binaries won't
work. One I know about is stat, which is now a macro instead of a
function call (breaks smbsh, even if you recompile it)
Some other software doesn't work either. One I know about is IBM DB2
database. I don't know why it doesn't work, it just doesn't, and of
course I don't have the source.
I've thought about compatibility links, but like you said, they're both
Overall though, there doesn't seem to be a lot of broken stuff.
precision of expression is more important
than conformance to traditional rules