On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 05:49:46PM -0500, Zed Pobre wrote: > > > Okay, the above is inflammatory, and I've debated deleting > > > it with myself for a little while, but I'm going to let it > > > stand, because some upgrade path is going to have to be provided > > > by the next release --
> > Sadly, your rant is too late. =) 2.3.1-3 provides an upgrade path > > by providing compatability with old static binaries. They will > > break at some point in the future, but any static > > binaries/libraries compiled against 2.3 will continue to be fine. > I am confused. I can confirm that it is *not* true that static > binaries compiled against 2.2 (i.e. woody libc6) will function with > 2.3.1-3, Hmm. I'll need a testcase then, because the testcases we have now work. > and I'm more concerned about that than I am about doing this all > over again in the future (i.e. until this is resolved, there will be > no clean way to handle a partial upgrade from woody to sarge). But > just so I get this right, it is now true that anything compiled > statically against 2.3.1-3+ should work even on a future system > running libc6, say, 4.5.9? I can't promise you a length of time in the future. The problem is that statically linked binaries on systems using glibc (So, GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurd, GNU/FreeBSD) are not entirely statically linked. They still reference NSS DSO's. There's no promise of infinite forward compatability. Tks, Jeff Bailey -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
