This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Support for smaller glibc
On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 11:12:35PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> "H . J . Lu" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > By "binary compatible", I mean I can compile against normal glibc as
> > long as I don't use those stripped functions.
> This ones again is against common sense in software engineering. It's
> horrible to use the same soname for such a derived library. Anyway,
Last time when I checked, glibc 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2 use the same soname.
glibc 2.1 doesn't have all functions in 2.2. But I can compile under
glibc 2.2 and run against glibc 2.1 as long as I don't use those new
functions in glibc 2.2. The stripped down glibc is more like glibc
2.0 with all those bug fixes and symbol versioning. What is wrong with
H.J. Lu (email@example.com)