Re: Glibc 2.1.94-3, fixes all issues with db libraries
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 01:56:33PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org> writes:
>
> > For those bitten by The Great Glibc Update of 2000, welcome to our annual
> > ritual. Please stay tuned during the next few months where we install a new
> > gcc. This will be followed by self inflicted pain of stricter C++ syntax,
> > macro collisions, binary incompatability and general chaos among kernel
> > builds[1]. Thank you for your patronage, and please come again[2].
>
> It's still the case that binaries compiled on woody or RedHat 7 will crash
> randomly on potato or Redhat 6? If so in the current system that still
> requires changing the soname but of course that's a losing battle, right?
>
> Hmph, I wonder if ld.so/ld could be patched to have a list of sonames provided
> by a library for run-time but a single one to use for compile-time linking.
>
> That way glibc2.2 could provide sonames 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 for run-time linking
> but when programs are compiled against it they would record 2.2 as the version
> they should be linked with.
>
> That seems like it would fix the binary incompatibility problems that glibc is
> introducing in linux recently.
I'd think you could just do this with symlinks - the problem is that
you'd need to change the soname away from libc6, which is a whole world
of chaos.
Dan
/--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University |
| dan@debian.org | | dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
Reply to: