Re: Is 2.3 really binary compatible?

[Greg Schafer <gschafer at zip dot com dot au>]

On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 03:01:18PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Greg Schafer wrote:
> 
> > A statically linked bash (against glibc-2.2.5) segfaults on a
> > glibc-2.3 system.
> > 
> > See here for details:-
> > 
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2002-09/msg00438.html
> > 
> > I understand it is related to how libnss works but isn't this a
> > binary incompatibility?
> 
> If you link statically you have to preserve your entire eco system the
> application runs in.  Just one of the reasons why static linking is so
> very much discouraged.

Hmm, back in the old days (was it glibc 2.0 or 2.1 ?), one could just copy
the old libnss* libs to the new system as they had a different soname. But
glibc-2.3 keeps it the same. eg: libnss_compat.so.2

I was thinking that if there is some sort of incompatibilty then the soname
should be bumped, but thats probably not the issue.

Greg