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]

Re: glibc 2.1.95 (5th test release)

To: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
Subject: Re: glibc 2.1.95 (5th test release)
From: Tom Rini <trini at kernel dot crashing dot org>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:15:36 -0700
Cc: drepper at cygnus dot com, howarth at bromo dot med dot uc dot edu, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
References: <200010091429.HAA61853@bromo.med.uc.edu> <m3hf6m11kh.fsf@otr.mynet.cygnus.com> <200010091642.SAA00823@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de>

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 06:42:00PM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> > > The net result is that one ends up with a huge number of rebuilds
> > > required against glibc 2.1.95 to totally purge your system of
> > > any hybrid binaries linked against glibc 2.1.3 and glibc 2.1.95
> > > built binaries. So this basically is a showstopper for us on ppc.
> > 
> > I don't disagree.  But I cannot delay everything else indefinitely
> > while waiting for this to be fixed.
> 
> If I understand this correctly, glibc 2.1.95 is not fully binary
> compatible to glibc 2.1.3. Is that the case (or is it the case only on
> PPC)?

Depending on the test case, this is PPC only.  However, real-world wise
this does not seem to be showing up on x86 anyways, which suggests it's
PPC only as far as most people care.

> OTOH, if that problem exists on PPC only, I could not care less...

Exactly :(

-- 
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

References:
- Re: glibc 2.1.95 (5th test release)
  - From: Jack Howarth
- Re: glibc 2.1.95 (5th test release)
  - From: Ulrich Drepper
- Re: glibc 2.1.95 (5th test release)
  - From: Martin v. Loewis

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