[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: hppa nptl switch

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Aurelien Jarno<aurelien@aurel32.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 10:09:22AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Mike Frysinger<vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > i think the question was one about packaging rather than general use ?  if you
>> > build a package against a newer glibc version but it only uses older symbols,
>> > then in theory it should work fine with older glibc versions.  if the symbol
>> > changes between versions, then it should have corresponding symbol version
>> > changes as well (which will automatically be recorded in the binary).
>> Yes, the question is specifically about packaging.
>> If the answer is "Debian does not prevent you from downgrading glibc,
>> even if you have new packages built against the new glibc", then I
>> accept that.
> With the correct shlibs and symbol files, all packages built against the
> new glibc will depends on libc6 (>= 2.10). This way it won't be possible
> to downgrade the libc6 packages is packages compiled against the new
> glibc are installed.

Is the shlibs sufficient? For example, data structures aren't
versioned. In my new NPTL patches, I change PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER,
but I do not version anything (not required because the current
functions support both old and new style initializers), therefore the
symbol files will be identical?

Thanks a lot for your help in answering my debian related packaging questions.


Reply to: