Re: libc6_2.0.106-0.1_i386.deb is released
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 18:28:49 +0100 (CET)
From: Santiago Vila <email@example.com>
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Keep in mind that it is very likely that somewhere in the future we
> will have to bump the libc soname for the Hurd, because the idea is to
> switch from GNU stdio to libio (which is used for Linux). If the name
> is used for dpendencies, I think both glibc2 and libc6 are a bad
> choice for the Hurd. The current soname is libc.so.0.2 which suggest
> that you should use something like libc0_2.
Does this mean that some day there will be some move like the
libc5 -> libc6 in Linux and that we will have to recompile everything?
That's almost inevitable. In theory it is possible to use symbol
versioning to avoid it, but that would mean this would mean a lot of
effort and probably introduce a lot of hard to track-down bugs. Note
that a libc0.2 -> libc0.3 transition would be a lot easier than libc5
-> libc6 on Linux since it's only the ABI that changes, not the API.
[ I would agree that "libc0.2" is the best name, then ].
I really think so.