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

Re: glibc 2.1 broke a couple of things.

On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 11:12:17AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer 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.)

No, it does not mean ascending and descending compatibility. You should be
able to chnage glibc from 2.0 to 2.1 without changing any other software
except programs using inofficial features. But there is no guarantee that a
binary developed with glibc2.1 works with 2.0. For instance an
incompatibility like this was introduced when switching libc from 5.2.* to
5.3.*. In fact that's why the change the minor release number.

Michael Meskes                         | Go SF 49ers!
Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz    | Go Rhein Fire!
Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651                 | Use Debian GNU/Linux!
Email: Michael.Meskes@gmx.net          | Use PostgreSQL!

Reply to: