Juan == Juan Cespedes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Juan However: almost *all* of our binaries will have to be
Juan recompiled.
Is it safe to base a distribution on this version of glibc, if the
authors feel free to break binary compatibility at any moment? From
what I can tell from sparc
Is there any reason not to change the soname, if it's that
incompatible? it's going to be *hard* to upgrade if we have to
basically redo the last month worth of bootstrapping from scratch. If
we can use a new soname, I can deal with moving forward with this
release... but if we can't do that, or
On 19 Jan 1998, Mark W. Eichin wrote:
Is there any reason not to change the soname, if it's that
incompatible?
It's not incompatible with glibc-2.0; it is with older pre-2.1
libraries.
it's going to be *hard* to upgrade if we have to
basically redo the last month worth of
It's not incompatible with glibc-2.0; it is with older pre-2.1
Oh, I see, and 2.0.90 is really 2.1-- rather than 2.0++.
Note: I think all the programs will still work. They will
only display 2 warnings when executing them. If you want, that
I guess I misinterpreted -- I thought you
On Mon, Jan 19, 1998 at 11:17:13AM -0500, Mark W. Eichin wrote:
It's not incompatible with glibc-2.0; it is with older pre-2.1
Oh, I see, and 2.0.90 is really 2.1-- rather than 2.0++.
Note: I think all the programs will still work. They will
only display 2 warnings when executing
I've (finally) managed to fix the problems with the new glibc;
I'm testing it, and I'll upload it in one or two days...
However: almost *all* of our binaries will have to be
recompiled.
Some vital structures have changed and all the programs
segfaulted, but I managed to
6 matches
Mail list logo
