Re: glibc 2.2 and gcc (Was Re: something completely different)
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Well, you can change the package name, but you must not change the soname
> or you are going to break binary comaptiblity with every other alpha dist
> out there. Our policy does say that the soname should be in the package
> name which means this scheme is somewhat against policy too..
Very true. Again, I don't think any changes need to be made to the
current scheme if binary compatibility isn't broken with glibc
2.1.95. 'libc6.1' has worked for alpha for (soon to be) two releases, so
no need to change what's not broken at this point.
Let's deal with this when binary compatibility is affected by a glibc
release (hopefully never :-P).