[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: glibc 2.1 and compatibility (Was: slink is gone, goals for potato?

On Wednesday 3 March 1999, at 1 h 41, the keyboard of Joel Klecker 
<jk@espy.org> wrote:

> This is false, binaries linked with glibc 2.0 work just fine under 
> glibc 2.1. Binaries linked with glibc 2.1 will not run on a glibc 2.0 
> system.

That's what I mean, there is no binary compatibility (only in one direction).

> Bugs don't get fixed in stable unless they are security bugs anyway.

Yes, but you can always retrieve a package from unstable and install it. It is 
more complicated if the package in unstable depends on a new libc.

> >Will we have at least a libc6-dev which can coexist with libc6.1-dev 
> >so I don't have to run two machines to make my packages?
> That is impossible.

In hamm, there was two environments (-dev and -altdev) to develop for libc6 and libc5. Why would it be impossible for potato? "I have no time to do it" is a valid reason but "impossible" is not, unless you explain.

Reply to: