Re: Why are new package versions depending on libc6 in unstable?
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.
The new glibc package breaks basically all correctly statically linked
programs which use DNS. So no, it's not binary compatible.
Of course, this is because its static linkage support is fundamentally
broken.
-J
Reply to: