Hi, On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:31:36AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 07:59:11AM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:21:24PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote: > > > Changing the version number does not mean that they *did* change > > > compatibility. It only means that they *might* have changed it. How > > > are you to know in a concrete and automated way? > > > > Whatever happened to: minor version number change - binary compatible, > > major version number change - source compatible or not compatible at all? > > Wrong direction. Old programs will still run with new glibc (well, > unless they use internal symbols they shouldn't), thus it's > binary-compatible in that direction. Is that always the case? (Hum, I remember some 2.0.7-2.1 transition "issues"). You're telling me ABI compatibility will never be broken anymore, ever - including as another poster said, by not fully compatible behaviour? I hold the glibc team in very high regard too, but that'd be asking a little too much, IMHO. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies / Emile van Bergen | emile@e-advies.info tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 | http://www.e-advies.info
Attachment:
pgp9Pvx2C7BYu.pgp
Description: PGP signature