Re: hppa nptl switch
Carlos O'Donell a écrit :
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Aurelien Jarno<firstname.lastname@example.org> 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<email@example.com> 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?
Yes, but we can change the symbol files so that all versions of all
symbols (for current symbols) resolve to libc6 (>= 2.10). This has
already been done for example for the sparc v8 to sparc v8plus ABI change.
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73