On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 11:29:45AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 11:27:09AM -0400, Brian White wrote: > > > > What confuses me is why libc6 would make a change like that in a "minor" > > > > revision (as indicated by the version number of the package). I would > > > > have expected the glibc guys to only redefine functions during the > > > > change of the "medium" or "major" revision numbers. > > > > > > Minor releases they only require backwards compatibility, not forwards. > > > "Medium" releases are huge. The "Major" revision is reserved for > > > something which will require a global change of soname - which they > > > have no intention of allowing. > > > > And that answers my original question. The libc6 "definition" of the > > "medium" and "minor" revision numbers are different than what I had > > expected them to mean. Thank you! > > > > Out of curiosity, would a "medium" change retain any amout of backward > > compatibility? > > Actually, medium releases also retain _complete_ binary compatibility. > They're just a little more pronounced. > > Glibc has no intention of breaking binary compat without bumping > soname, and no intention of bumping soname.
Yeah, I think for glibc a "medium" change means core changes in the underlying system. They always retain backward binary compatibility. Sometimes a medium rev will break source compatibility though. As for major version increases, Daniel's right. We'll wont see a libc7 in this century. And to answer anyone's question about "cruft", see the Debian glibc package build and it's usage of --enable-kernel, or check the documentation on the --enable-oldest-abi configure flag aswell. Ben -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
