Re: libc6 dependency generation
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 11:27:09AM -0400, Brian White wrote:
> > > What confuses me is why libc6 would make a change like that in a "minor"
> > > revision (as indicated by the version number of the package). I would
> > > have expected the glibc guys to only redefine functions during the
> > > change of the "medium" or "major" revision numbers.
> >
> > Minor releases they only require backwards compatibility, not forwards.
> > "Medium" releases are huge. The "Major" revision is reserved for
> > something which will require a global change of soname - which they
> > have no intention of allowing.
>
> And that answers my original question. The libc6 "definition" of the
> "medium" and "minor" revision numbers are different than what I had
> expected them to mean. Thank you!
>
> Out of curiosity, would a "medium" change retain any amout of backward
> compatibility?
Actually, medium releases also retain _complete_ binary compatibility.
They're just a little more pronounced.
Glibc has no intention of breaking binary compat without bumping
soname, and no intention of bumping soname.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: