On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 11:08:09AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:43:16PM -0500, Zed Pobre wrote: > > > Okay, the above is inflammatory, and I've debated deleting it > > with myself for a little while, but I'm going to let it stand, > > because some upgrade path is going to have to be provided by the > > next release -- > > Sadly, your rant is too late. =) 2.3.1-3 provides an upgrade path by > providing compatability with old static binaries. They will break at > some point in the future, but any static binaries/libraries compiled > against 2.3 will continue to be fine. I am confused. I can confirm that it is *not* true that static binaries compiled against 2.2 (i.e. woody libc6) will function with 2.3.1-3, and I'm more concerned about that than I am about doing this all over again in the future (i.e. until this is resolved, there will be no clean way to handle a partial upgrade from woody to sarge). But just so I get this right, it is now true that anything compiled statically against 2.3.1-3+ should work even on a future system running libc6, say, 4.5.9? -- Zed Pobre <firstname.lastname@example.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <email@example.com> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
Description: PGP signature