On Saturday 13 March 1999, at 13 h 8, the keyboard of shaleh@clifford.livenet.net wrote: > of the process. libc5 and libc6 were very different beasts, glibc2.1 is a new > version of 2.0. It has a similar soname so it mistakes libc6 for 2.1. I've never read a good reason for that. Why did the glibc upstream maintainers keep the same soname when there is no compatibility??? (An identical soname means ascending and descending compatibility.)