Re: glibc-compat ???
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Eric Weigel wrote:
> 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
> libc 6.0.
> Overall though, there doesn't seem to be a lot of broken stuff.
The other one it breaks is Oracle 8.0, and one needs to convert Redhat
compatibility libraries to be able install it, and a patch from Oracle.
I have heard it also broke Applixware, but I am not sure.