This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Is 2.3 really binary compatible?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Greg Schafer wrote:

> A statically linked bash (against glibc-2.2.5) segfaults on a
> glibc-2.3 system.
> 
> See here for details:-
> 
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2002-09/msg00438.html
> 
> I understand it is related to how libnss works but isn't this a
> binary incompatibility?

If you link statically you have to preserve your entire eco system the
application runs in.  Just one of the reasons why static linking is so
very much discouraged.

- -- 
- --------------.                        ,-.            444 Castro Street
Ulrich Drepper \    ,-----------------'   \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
Red Hat         `--' drepper at redhat.com `---------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE9nL4u2ijCOnn/RHQRAo19AKCdbVLg54EbAbue/kW/c2pVefchNwCfaQYu
Hz/4c6cLGgnLSw1kCnNGVM8=
=yrCj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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