Re: libc6 dependency generation

[Jeff Bailey <jbailey@nisa.net>]

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.  

Glibc works with a concept of "OLDEST_ABI".  There are functions that
are available on i386 glibc which are not available on, say, the s390.
Because the s390 was never around before certain symbols were
obsoleted, there's no reason to provide them.

Further issues are probably best taken up with upstream.

Tks,
Jeff Bailey

-- 
learning from failures is nice in theory...
but in practice, it sucks :)
 - Wolfgang Jaehrling