On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:04:39AM -0400, Omri Schwarz wrote: > What it does is determine libc version by running > /lib/libc.so.(version) and putting that through a sed one liner > that expects three version numbers. Fedora 5 right now has binaries > for /lib/libc.so.6 that give a two number version: 2.4 > > I have a software package with 38 configure scripts, all of which > contain this stanza, and by Paul Bunyan's beard I swear, the perl > one liner to edit all of them to change the version=... is defeating me... > > Lots of developers for lots of products expect three number versions for > libc. Should Fedora perhaps return to that convention? That's not a fedora decision, this is the way upstream glibc is numbered. glibc 2.3 (back in fall 2002) was also 2.3, not 2.3.0 (the libraries were /lib*/lib*-2.3.so etc.), the upcoming glibc will be 2.5 and there are actually no plans to do 3 digit numbered glibcs anymore (except that development snapshots are 2.x.9y), though of course you shouldn't rely on it. So, definitely fix all the crappy scripts (btw, why aren't they just #include <features.h> and looking at __GLIBC__ and __GLIBC_MINOR__ macros?). Jakub -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list