Re: [parisc-linux] glibc 2.1.94 CVS merge, packages on the way, ABI breakage :(
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> writes:
> You never should have GLIBC_2.0 symbols. The shlib-versions file
> should have GLIBC_2.2 as the earliest version (third column).
Ah, I see what the problem is. It seems that it is my fault :(
I take it that libc.so, libm.so, and ld.so should all be versioned
with GLIBC_2.2 as the base, then?
--
dhd@linuxcare.com, http://www.linuxcare.com/
Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.
Reply to: