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?

From: Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <arekm at pld-linux dot org>
To: Greg Schafer <gschafer at zip dot com dot au>
Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: 04 Oct 2002 10:59:50 +0200
Subject: Re: Is 2.3 really binary compatible?
Organization: Self Organizing
References: <200210032257.SAA16896@bromo.msbb.uc.edu><20021004035939.GA16503@tigers-lfs.nsw.bigpond.net.au>

Greg Schafer <gschafer@zip.com.au> writes:

> No prelink here (yet!)
> 
> One thing I have established though is that my static bash binary runs
> fine on a glibc-2.2.92 system.
> 
> So, somewhere between 2.2.92 and 2.2.94, the libnss stuff became incompatible.
93 and 94 even. Here static rpm, vi, glftpd, mldonkey are also segfaulting
and everything started with 94.

> Greg

-- 
Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz    CS at FoE, Wroclaw University of Technology
arekm@sse.pl   AM2-6BONE, 1024/3DB19BBD, arekm(at)ircnet, PLD/Linux

References:
- Re: Is 2.3 really binary compatible?
  - From: Jack Howarth
- Re: Is 2.3 really binary compatible?
  - From: Greg Schafer

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