On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Eric Weigel wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote: > > > Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs. > > > Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros > > > have? > > > > They're both libc 6.0 -- how would ld.so know which one you wanted? > > Any apps which run on 6.0 and not 6.1 are broken and should be fixed. > > > Some things changed from 2.0 to 2.1 so that non broken binaries won't > work. One I know about is stat, which is now a macro instead of a > function call (breaks smbsh, even if you recompile it) > > Some other software doesn't work either. One I know about is IBM DB2 > database. I don't know why it doesn't work, it just doesn't, and of > course I don't have the source. > > I've thought about compatibility links, but like you said, they're both > libc 6.0. > > Overall though, there doesn't seem to be a lot of broken stuff. > The other one it breaks is Oracle 8.0, and one needs to convert Redhat compatibility libraries to be able install it, and a patch from Oracle. I have heard it also broke Applixware, but I am not sure. Robert Varga
