Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Huggins-Daines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I take it that libc.so, libm.so, and ld.so should all be versioned > > with GLIBC_2.2 as the base, then? > > Every single DSO. There is no compatibility to be preserved.
Okay, yes, you're right. Unfortunately we've built a bunch of binaries against our broken libc, so it will all have to be rebuilt, because all binaries expect to see GLIBC_2.0 and GLIBC_2.1 versions. But I guess this is the right thing to do, since we really do not want any of the compatibility cruft bloating our libc. HP people note: Yes it looks like we have to rebuild everything. I think I can get things up again rather quickly, as I just need to build a static toolchain and then relink all the packages that are sitting around built on my A180. We will have to clear out the archive in pehc:/pub/debian-hppa though. I am not very pleased with symbol versioning at the moment :( -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.linuxcare.com/ Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.
