From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailserv2.iuinc.com (IDENT:qmailr@mailserv2.iuinc.com [206.245.164.55]) by puffin.external.hp.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA03636 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:23:01 -0600 Received: from ottawa.linuxcare.com (HELO tarwebok) (216.208.98.2) by mailserv2.iuinc.com with SMTP; 4 Oct 2000 01:23:54 -0000 To: drepper@cygnus.com (Ulrich Drepper) Cc: parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, parisc@lists.linuxcare.com Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] glibc 2.1.94 CVS merge, packages on the way, ABI breakage :( References: <87aecl60mf.fsf@linuxcare.com> <87u2at4l1k.fsf@linuxcare.com> From: David Huggins-Daines Date: 03 Oct 2000 21:23:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: Ulrich Drepper's message of "03 Oct 2000 15:42:35 -0700" Message-ID: <87og114cww.fsf@linuxcare.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-ID: Ulrich Drepper writes: > David Huggins-Daines writes: > > > I take it that libc.so, libm.so, and ld.so should all be versioned > > with GLIBC_2.2 as the base, then? > > Every single DSO. There is no compatibility to be preserved. Okay, yes, you're right. Unfortunately we've built a bunch of binaries against our broken libc, so it will all have to be rebuilt, because all binaries expect to see GLIBC_2.0 and GLIBC_2.1 versions. But I guess this is the right thing to do, since we really do not want any of the compatibility cruft bloating our libc. HP people note: Yes it looks like we have to rebuild everything. I think I can get things up again rather quickly, as I just need to build a static toolchain and then relink all the packages that are sitting around built on my A180. We will have to clear out the archive in pehc:/pub/debian-hppa though. I am not very pleased with symbol versioning at the moment :( -- dhd@linuxcare.com, http://www.linuxcare.com/ Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.