Re: glibc 2.1 and compatibility (Was: slink is gone, goals for potato?
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr> writes:
> On Tuesday 2 March 1999, at 0 h 45, the keyboard of Edward Betts
> <edward@hairnet.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Libraries
> > glibc 2.1 - lots of recompiles
>
> As far as I know (can a real guru confirm/deny?), there is no binary
> compatibility between glibc 2.0 and 2.1 (like it was between libc5
> and glibc). So we'll have a difficult move, like between bo and
> hamm. And the packages which are compiled on potat will not run on
> slink or hamm.
Right now, I am running Netscape, which was dynamically linked against
glibc 2.0, agains glibc 2.1. In fact I've been running it for 3
months (with glibc 2.1 betas.) I'd call that binary compatibility.
There _is_ some _minor_ incompatibility between the various 2.1 betas,
but not between 2.0.7 and 2.1.
Steve
dunham@cse.msu.edu
Reply to: