Re: glibc 2.1 broke a couple of things.
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> 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.)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 (debian)
Can you configure this program to send lines of a standard length? 74
chars, perhaps?
The reason they kept the soname is because binary compatibility is kept.
The fact that packages compiled against glibc2.1 cannot be used with 2.0
is, I admit, annoying. I assume there is a good reason for this.
However, I'm glad they did keep binary compatibility - it has made our
job, as distribution makers, much simpler.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: