This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Support for smaller glibc
On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 11:12:35PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> "H . J . Lu" <hjl@valinux.com> writes:
>
> > By "binary compatible", I mean I can compile against normal glibc as
> > long as I don't use those stripped functions.
>
> This ones again is against common sense in software engineering. It's
> horrible to use the same soname for such a derived library. Anyway,
Last time when I checked, glibc 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2 use the same soname.
glibc 2.1 doesn't have all functions in 2.2. But I can compile under
glibc 2.2 and run against glibc 2.1 as long as I don't use those new
functions in glibc 2.2. The stripped down glibc is more like glibc
2.0 with all those bug fixes and symbol versioning. What is wrong with
that?
--
H.J. Lu (hjl@valinux.com)