This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Shared lib major number



I couldn't find this info in the FAQ or texts I read, but why wasn't the
major number of the shared libs bumped for the glibc 2.1 release?
While it's true that most binaries compiled under 2.0 will work under
2.1, imo, there are enough incompatibilities to warrant bumping the
release number. 

>From posts I've read on this list, anything that uses c++ or libio needs
to be recompiled.  I've also been advised to just recompile everything
because no one is exactly sure what needs to be recompiled.  I'm not sure
how the library versioning is supposed to work but it didn't seem to be
working at all last night when I compiled ncftp 3.0b18 under glibc 2.1
against readline 2.2.1 and ncurses 4.2 (both compiled under 2.0).  The
compile worked fine but it would segfault when I ran it.  Grabbing the
ncurses & readline rpms from RH's rawhide dist and recompiling ncftp fixed
the problem. 

Since the glibc 2.1 release was "recalled" (for lack of a better term),
would it be possible for the next release to bump the major number of the
shared libs so that a) people can easily use binaries compiled against 2.0
& 2.1 on the same system without going the the hassle of invoking
ld-linux.so.2 manually and b) when compiling programs, we know exactly
which libraries we can compile against and expect the program to work
rather than spending time figuring out whether the program in question is
broken?

- cls



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]