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

libc.so.0.2 -> libc.so.2 (?)


This is a question for the Hurd developers:

I noticed that the libc in GNU 0.2, libc.so.0.2, has "0.2" as version
number. Does this mean that the libc in GNU 0.3 will have "0.3" as version
number? Will this break every executable? Will a simple symlink
libc.so.0.2 -> libc.so.0.3 be enough for backwards compatibility?
Do we maybe want not to have backwards compatibility?

I know Linux uses "libc.so.6" for historical reasons.
Should we use perhaps "libc.so.2" for GNU/Hurd, to be consistent?


 "e8f2095655bb6bc8e6684feeeacbbfd6" (a truly random sig)

Reply to: