Re: libc6 dependency generation
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 05:45:35AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 08:36:28AM -0400, Brian White wrote:
>
> > But that still leaves the question: Why is a change from 2.2.5-4 to
> > 2.2.5-13 changing the symbol set? I would have expected that the
> > upstream "libc6" group would not do that on minor revision changes
> > (i.e. 2.2.4 to 2.2.5). Surely there is some upstream libc6 policy
> > they follow that says, for example:
>
> Please don't guess things like that. Glibc has alot of linker magic
> in it to permit them to fix things. For example, they may restrict
> the ability of new programs to link to a symbol but still allow old
> programs to call it. They may introduce some extra functionality in a
> call, but permit older programs to still run correctly.
Agreed. There's no such case of this happening in reality, so we should
stop discussing the "WHAT IF GLIBC BECOMES EVIL" fears.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
Reply to: