>>>>> "jaharkes" == jaharkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jaharkes> Hmm, venus is dynamically linked against libc.so.6, and
jaharkes> didn't redhat move to glibc2.1? I will be bitching and
jaharkes> moaning into the new century if they actually managed to
jaharkes> break the libc binary API, without changing the version
jaharkes> number. But it really looks like the new glibc is
jaharkes> suspect.
Speaking as a Debian developer, I was personally impacted by *several*
breakages in the libc binary API when Debian 2.2 moved from glibc2.0
to 2.1.
Namely, simple libraries like GLib (the partner in crime of GTK+) no
longer worked, because of backwards incompatibilities.
Basically, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is due to glibc2.1
crap. They really released it far too early, with way too many
backwards incompatibilities..
--
Brought to you by the letters X and Y and the number 14.
"Bill Gates is a talented evil man."
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer of Gimp and GTK+ -- http://www.debian.org/
I'm on FurryMUCK as Che, and EFNet/Open Projects IRC as Che_Fox.
