Re: glibc-2.1.95 and (l)chown
On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 10:21:20PM +0200, Michael Fedrowitz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while playing with glibc-2.1.95, I came across the following problem:
> Debian's glibc-2.1.3 defines chown and lchown as versioned symbols (at
> version GLIBC_2.1) on m68k, while upstream uses weak aliases. This means
> of course, that programs linked against the old glibc won't work with
> glibc-2.1.95 as it is. Now we could of course add a patch to turn the weak
> aliases into versioned symbols again, but this would leave us forever with
> this senseless incompatibility. Anyway, I have now come up with the
> following:
>
> diff -urN glibc-2.1.95.orig/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/m68k/chown.c glibc-2.1.95/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/m68k/chown.c
> --- glibc-2.1.95.orig/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/m68k/chown.c Fri Sep 1 05:58:10 2000
> +++ glibc-2.1.95/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/m68k/chown.c Sat Oct 14 14:58:38 2000
> @@ -72,3 +72,8 @@
> #endif
> }
> weak_alias (__chown, chown)
> +
> +#include <shlib-compat.h>
> +#if SHLIB_COMPAT (libc, GLIBC_2_1, GLIBC_2_2)
> +compat_symbol (libc, __chown, chown, GLIBC_2_1);
> +#endif
> diff -urN glibc-2.1.95.orig/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/m68k.orig/lchown.c glibc-2.1.95/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/m68k/lchown.c
> --- glibc-2.1.95.orig/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/m68k/lchown.c Mon Jan 17 06:20:35 2000
> +++ glibc-2.1.95/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/m68k/lchown.c Sat Oct 14 14:59:05 2000
> @@ -1 +1,6 @@
> #include <sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/i386/lchown.c>
> +
> +#include <shlib-compat.h>
> +#if SHLIB_COMPAT (libc, GLIBC_2_1, GLIBC_2_2)
> +compat_symbol (libc, __lchown, lchown, GLIBC_2_1);
> +#endif
>
>
> This is of course an evil hack, but it would give us both compatibility
> with old programs (which require (l)chown@GLIBC_2.1) and also restore
> binary compatibility with upstream glibc (because newly linked programs now
> only require (l)chown@GLIBC_2.0).
>
> Unless someone comes up with a better solution, I'll file a bug against
> glibc asking to include this patch (and to update to the latest CVS; or
> alternatively to wait for 2.1.96 and then add the patch).
>
> -Michael
Please search the archives of this (or the linux-m68k) list, I think this
change was done deliberately, but maybe Roman can tell you more.
Christian
Reply to: