Adam> It wouldn't hurt but I don't think it's necessary. glibc2.1 can Adam> drop-in replace 2.0 (unless you have a program that depends on Adam> certain internal stuff which it shouldn't be using anyway).
Octave doesn't depend on internal stuff, but still fails when a glibc2.0 compiled version is used under glibc2.1. The bug can be reproduced by the program below which, like Octave, segfault under 2.1 when compiled under 2.0. It is due to some C++ streams <-> libc io issue. The bugs have been reassigned to libc6, but I haven't heard anything yet. #include <iostream.h> #include <strstream.h> int main (void) { ostrstream buf; for (int i = 32; i < 127; i++) buf << (char) i; buf << endl; buf << ends; cout << buf.str (); return 0; } -- According to the latest figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.