Rahul Dave wrote:
> I wanted to ask, whats the reason for the continuing libc fiasco's, this time
> between glibc2.0 and glibc2.1. JDK1.2RC4 from blackdown wants 2.1, and Oracle
> 8i needs 2.1. It was my impression that the external interface was standardized, is it
> that someone keeps breaking binary compatibility? I dont understand..
I believe in the beginning, this was one of the primary goals of the
LSB, to define what the "current standard" would be, and then the idea
floated around about "LSB version 1", "LSB version 2" as the kernel, or
any major library updates came out.
This begs the issue of "backwards compliant."
It can probably be handled by doing something like "This OS is LSB
version 5 compliant, with backwards computability to LSB versions 3, and
It's another "moving target" problem, where the LSB needs to focus some
attention. I honestly can't tell you the status on the solution to the
problem, just what I remember being discussed. I'm interested to know
if this is/was addressed as well, and look forward to hearing from those
working on it.
(side rant, see... It's going to be complex enought without considering
X ;-P )
org:Hazard Evaluation Laboratories, Inc.;Applications and Installation Engineer
adr:;;1 Deer Park Dr., Suite L;Monmouth Junction;NJ;08852-1921;USA
fn:Robert W. Current