Re: glibc 2.1 and compatibility (Was: slink is gone, goals for potato?
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> 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).
there was no binary compatibility between libc5 and libc6 at all, we now
have it 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.
It is just a small package of several hundred kilobytes. Btw we always had
this issue (one way compatibility), even in time of bo and rex.
>
> > >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.
Because libc5 and libc6 were completely incompatible.
--
Madarasz Gergely gorgo@caesar.elte.hu gorgo@linux.rulez.org
It's practically impossible to look at a penguin and feel angry.
Egy pingvinre gyakorlatilag lehetetlen haragosan nezni.
HuLUG: http://mlf.linux.rulez.org/
Reply to: