Re: real LSB compliance
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> I'd do it, but I can't seem to find a source code bundle. There are, as you
> probably noticed, aliened .debs in the FTP area.
You might want to try their sourceforge cvs repository. The lack of a
source code tarball was disconcerting, yes.
> > Checking symbols in /lib/libc.so.6
> > fgetpos64 has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting GLIBC_2.1
> > fgetwc has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting
> > fgetwc_unlocked has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting
> > getrlimit64 has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting GLIBC_2.1
> > getwc has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting
> > msgctl has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting GLIBC_2.0
> > posix_memalign has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting
> > shmctl has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting GLIBC_2.0
> > vfwscanf has version GLIBC_2.2, expecting
>
> Since glibc 2.2 is backward-compatible with 2.0 and 2.1, what is the point of
> these checks? Looks like I have some documentation to read to find out what
> this tool is trying to accomplish.
Damned if I know. The spec does include symbol versions for most of the
symbols in glibc. It doesn't seem to say why.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: