On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 05:45:35AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 08:36:28AM -0400, Brian White wrote: > > > But that still leaves the question: Why is a change from 2.2.5-4 to > > 2.2.5-13 changing the symbol set? I would have expected that the > > upstream "libc6" group would not do that on minor revision changes > > (i.e. 2.2.4 to 2.2.5). Surely there is some upstream libc6 policy > > they follow that says, for example: > > Please don't guess things like that. Glibc has alot of linker magic > in it to permit them to fix things. For example, they may restrict > the ability of new programs to link to a symbol but still allow old > programs to call it. They may introduce some extra functionality in a > call, but permit older programs to still run correctly.
Agreed. There's no such case of this happening in reality, so we should stop discussing the "WHAT IF GLIBC BECOMES EVIL" fears. -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
