On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Carlos O'Donell<carlos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Aurelien Jarno<aurelien@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Frans Pop a écrit : >>> Carlos O'Donell wrote: >>>>> In practice it shouldn't be problem at all. >>>>> Debian should make sure that binary/library compiled >>>>> against NPTL-hppa-glibc will require NPTL-hppa-glibc >>>>> by proper Depends: line like "libc6 (>= 2.10)". >>>> Does every package have to do this? I'm not very familiar with all the >>>> packaging requirements. >>> >>> It is something that should automatically get done correctly as long as >>> the libc-dev package defines the minimum version that way. >>> >>> The mechanism that determines this is in /var/lib/dpkg/info/libc6.shlibs. >>> Currently this has lines like: >>> libc 6 libc6 (>= 2.9) >>> >> >> No, as glibc uses symbols files, this file is actually not used. >> Nevertheless it is still possible to resolve all symbols to libc6 (>= 2.10). > > Once an application is rebuilt against a new libc, what prevents the > user from downgrading libc and breaking the application? I'd say "common sense" but I recall we don't have protection against silliness ;^) T-Bone -- Thibaut VARENE http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
