[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: G++ libraries
> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 20:11:31 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Donovan Rebbechi <email@example.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Reply-To: email@example.com
> X-To-Get-Off-This-List: mail firstname.lastname@example.org, body unsubscribe independence-l
> X-UIDL: 9304b6f2f0aa55ffba21b6ce73fdfe52
> On 16 Aug 1998 email@example.com wrote:
> > people not having it. Problem is: does 2.8 work with libc5?
> > Apparently yes. However people using a glibc2.8 compiled for libc5
> > will have problems with their c++ apps the day they upgrade to a RH
> > 5.x.
> it took me a little while to work out what you meant.
> I don't believe that using Redhat's upgrade option to go from RH4x and
> RH5x is a smart move anyway. It breaks several packages and leaves you
> with a very hosed system. In this case, a clean re-install makes more
> sense, since *all* of their RH4 software is incompatible with the RH5
> shared libraries. The upgrade only works when *every* package is replaced.
> (I tried the 4.1->5 upgrade and it was a disaster, I had to redo it from
> My point is that someone trying to do a smooth upgrade from RH4x to RH5x
> is heading for heartache, regardless of what we do with our
> compilers/shared libraries.
It worked for me. I think the reason is I was prudent enough to
downgrade to libc-5.3.12 from libc-5.4.44. Then and only then I
upgraded my distribution. This way my old libc-5.3.12 RPM was
upgraded by the new one in the distribution. The new one contained
not only libc-5 but also many other libraries compiled against libc-5.
Those who had upgraded to libc-5.4.x and failed to downgrade first
didn't get the new libc5 RPM and found their legacy applications were
using the glibc-compatible libraries in conjunction with libc5.
Returning to our subject: providing a libg++ 2.8 for libc5 would force
us to provide a special RPM for the day people will upgrade to a glibc
> > Finally we could go 2.8 only for glibc packages, remain in 2.7 for
> > libc and accept some software will not be available to libc5 users.
> this is true to some extent anyway. The next major releases of Caldera and
> SuSE will probably bury libc 5 ... which will make life much easier for
The next Suse (don't remember if 5.2 or 5.3) will allow to run glibc
applications. Caldera will go from 1.2 to 2.0 and the change in
version number hints to radical changes, one of them being probably
Jean Francois Martinez
Project Independence: Linux for the Masses