"Juan" == Juan Cespedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juan> However: almost *all* of our binaries will have to be
Juan> recompiled.
Is it safe to base a distribution on this version of glibc, if the
authors feel free to break binary compatibility at any moment? From
what I can tell from sparc development, this glibc has worked the same
for about a year -- now everything is changing.
This has overturned a couple of formerly unconscious assumptions I've
been making:
1. Debian packages of 1999 will be drop-in compatible
with this release, since libc6 will probaby still be used.
2. Debian and Redhat 5.0/SPARC, if and when they release it,
will be binary-compatible.
Either theres a bug in compatibility code, or this glibc 2.1 is so
unstable and different that it is more rightly considered libc7.
The glibc 2.1 FAQ however, in section 2.15, holds out a little hope
that this is a bug in either glibc or the program (which shouldn't
reference low-level data structures at all).
Whatever is decided here, the binary compatibility of "libc6" must not
change again until Debian 2.1 is released, if then.
--------------------- PGP E4 70 6E 59 80 6A F5 78 63 32 BC FB 7A 08 53 4C
__ _ Debian GNU Johnie Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mm mm
/ /(_)_ __ _ ___ __ "netgod" irc.debian.org mm mm
/ / | | '_ \| | | \ \/ / m m m
/ /__| | | | | |_| |> < Those who do not understand UNIX mm mm
\____/_|_| |_|\__,_/_/\_\ are doomed to repeat it, poorly. GO BLUE
