On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Aurelien Jarno<aurelien@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 10:09:22AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Mike Frysinger<vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > i think the question was one about packaging rather than general use ? if you >> > build a package against a newer glibc version but it only uses older symbols, >> > then in theory it should work fine with older glibc versions. if the symbol >> > changes between versions, then it should have corresponding symbol version >> > changes as well (which will automatically be recorded in the binary). >> >> Yes, the question is specifically about packaging. >> >> If the answer is "Debian does not prevent you from downgrading glibc, >> even if you have new packages built against the new glibc", then I >> accept that. >> > > With the correct shlibs and symbol files, all packages built against the > new glibc will depends on libc6 (>= 2.10). This way it won't be possible > to downgrade the libc6 packages is packages compiled against the new > glibc are installed. Is the shlibs sufficient? For example, data structures aren't versioned. In my new NPTL patches, I change PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER, but I do not version anything (not required because the current functions support both old and new style initializers), therefore the symbol files will be identical? Thanks a lot for your help in answering my debian related packaging questions. Cheers, Carlos. -- 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
