On 26 Mar, Kay Schenk wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 05:57 Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Kay Schenk wrote: >> > This particular requirement is a source of confusion for me. >> > >> > I'm pretty sure glib 2.5, is some internal RedHat (CentOS5) version >> > numbering scheme. This is really glibc, and we need to accurately >> > specify the minimal version we will be requiring. >> >> No they are two different things. See my explanation at >> https://s.apache.org/hM06 (archives of this list). This means we should >> list both, but insist on glibc in particular. >> > > Thanks Andrea -- after spending some time looking yesterday, I did see that > "glib" and "glibc" were two distinct entities. FWIW, I *think* "glib 5" > corresponds to the standard series if glib 1.x something. > > In any case, we have this "glib 5" requirement for using Linux. Is this > still correct? Or maybe, what is the acceptable relationship pairing > between "glib" and "glibc" ?
They are kind of independent. CentOS 6 has glibc version 2.12 and glib version 2.28. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
