Carlos O'Donell a écrit : > 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? > Yes, but we can change the symbol files so that all versions of all symbols (for current symbols) resolve to libc6 (>= 2.10). This has already been done for example for the sparc v8 to sparc v8plus ABI change. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurelien@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.aurel32.net -- 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
