On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 11:08:09AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:43:16PM -0500, Zed Pobre wrote:
>
> > Okay, the above is inflammatory, and I've debated deleting it
> > with myself for a little while, but I'm going to let it stand,
> > because some upgrade path is going to have to be provided by the
> > next release --
>
> Sadly, your rant is too late. =) 2.3.1-3 provides an upgrade path by
> providing compatability with old static binaries. They will break at
> some point in the future, but any static binaries/libraries compiled
> against 2.3 will continue to be fine.
I am confused. I can confirm that it is *not* true that static
binaries compiled against 2.2 (i.e. woody libc6) will function with
2.3.1-3, and I'm more concerned about that than I am about doing this
all over again in the future (i.e. until this is resolved, there will
be no clean way to handle a partial upgrade from woody to sarge). But
just so I get this right, it is now true that anything compiled
statically against 2.3.1-3+ should work even on a future system
running libc6, say, 4.5.9?
--
Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
Attachment:
pgptHYr5HY3Wt.pgp
Description: PGP signature