Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm sure the glibc folks indeed work very hard at this and are largely
> successful. I also know, however, that over the past couple of years or
> so, I've had to recompile nearly all of my applications on several
> occasions when I've upgraded glibc. Other times, glibc upgrades have
> gone without a hitch. It's probably my fault and probably somewhere
> deep in my personal library I'm incorrectly fiddling with stdio
> internals or something, but I just wanted to offer a counter data point
> that doing this sort of this robustly is, indeed, very hard.
It may not be your fault... my understanding is that glibc 2.0 really
didn't do things right, and that glibc 2.1 did break some binary
compatibility to fix some serious bugs. It's probably only fair to start
holding glibc to this standard from 2.2 and up.
Perl *should* have a *much* easier task than glibc, given that our
interface is positively tiny compared to the entire C library.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
