Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
I think you confusion is due to semantics and wording, programs are not changed to use new glibc features, it simply means that when the software is compiled in target xyz and a new/improved/optimized libc routine is provided, dependencies are changed in order to ensure the binary is being run under the proper conditions.
And that makes sense. However, what I don't understand, is why when I load glibc-2.17, I get various programs that won't load because: boot.msg:/usr/sbin/libvirtd: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.15' not found (required by /usr/lib64/libvirt.so.0) boot.msg:/usr/sbin/libvirtd: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.16' not found (required by /usr/lib64/libvirt.so.0) boot.msg:Starting minidlna /usr/sbin/minidlna: /lib64/libm.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.15' not found (required by /usr/lib64/libvorbis.so.0) now it so happens that in my /lib64, I DO have a libc-2.15.so, libc-2.16.so and libc-2.17.so. It's just that the default pointed to by libc.so.6 is the latest. What I was trying to say was that if a program was out there that NEEDED a specific version of libc-2.XY.so, then shouldn't it *link* to libc-2.XY.SO instead of of libc.so.6? It seems MOST programs should work with *newer* libraries, AT LEAST within a few versions... Sure, if you take one requiring libc-1.99.so I'd be skeptical of it working. libc-2.05.so? Maybe, libc-2.12, >50%, libc within 2-3 versions past (not necessarily *future*, as if something was linked with a *future* version, it might not run on an OLD version...but older progs, should be a bit more resilient and run on a next gen or 2 or 3 of libc... Otherwise, it makes it impossible to keep up and everything coordinated. With versions popping out every 3 months, that means all SW needs to be updated on the same schedule (libc2.15=Jul15-2012, libc2.16=Oct11 2012 (3 months later), and now libc-2.17.so dated Jan16. My SW can't keep up!... Am I supposed to ?? Another prob Ihad was a missing OW_CRYPT symbol that wasn't in the source anywhere. another "gotme".... When I talked about instability in the libc-series... people said I was fear mongering... but 3 incompat versions in 6 months? That's reasonable? I'm looking for solutions -- NOT finger pointing or blame... I can recompile things -- I DO recompile things -- I want to continue to have that option. But this is getting rougher all the time... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org