[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: libc 2.4 instead of 2.4.0 causing configure scripts to break.



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


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]