On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 10:04:17PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > The problem I concerned is the symbol GLIBC_PRIVATE is defined as > GLIBC_2.3.4, not the current symbol GLIBC_2.3.3. I'm not certain this > change does not cause any problems. It is a chain of version definitions. But binaries only save the actual value of the version and don't depend on the chain, otherwise it won't be ever able to add version in the middle or drop versions. Also GLIBC_PRIVATE is only used by glibc itself, so the only source of problems may the different glibc packages. But I currently see nothing which may really cause problems here as ld.so is not effected. (See this as a small part of the upgrade to 2.3.4, with the exception that you don't break the compatiblity between ld.so and libc.so.6.) Bastian -- You! What PLANET is this! -- McCoy, "The City on the Edge of Forever", stardate 3134.0
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature