Re: nostalgia: libc5 -> libc6 transition
martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> writes:
> I apologise for bringing up things of the past, but I am researching
> and need your help. Back when I upgraded Bo to Hamm, it worked like
> a charm. Ever since then, I have heard the "Debian was the only one
> to handle the libc6 migration gracefully" many, many times.
>
> Now, after researching quite a bit, it seems that the transition was
> not so smooth after all. For instance, apparently X broke (which
> I didn't notice as I wasn't using it), and third-party non-Debian
> software didn't run anymore (due to -rpath pointing at the location
> where the libc6 files had replaced the libc5 ones). I imagine that
> if Hamm also provided updated X libraries, then the first problem
> was easily fixed whereas the second could be worked around with
> a hacked ld.so.
>
> So is it true to say that Debian handled the transition nicely?
Debian handled the transition nicely. Broken third party software
didn't. There is nothing Debian could have done to make third party
software work.
> Also, along the same lines, I'd be interested to hear what about
> Debian and the policy made the transition possible. Right now,
> I have -rpath and SONAME-change-on-ABI-change noted, but both are
> really lessons we learned from the libc6 transition, not something
> that enabled it, right?
Shlibs files that set the correct Depends on updated libraries.
> Looking forward to your input!
Maybe the gcc-3.2 transition would be a better case since that
included what was learned from the libc6 transition.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: