[lug] libc backwards compatibility?

[Nate Duehr]

You're struggling with a problem our developers at work have also
struggled with, but I can't go into details.  

Suffice it to say, glibc is a clusterf***, in fact all of gcc is.

That'll probably be enough of a hint to get you to where you need to
go... 

(In other words, if you're built off of a particular version and you've
TESTED that binary, stick with the version you built with, or plan on a
lengthy re-test cycle.  In the business environment, GCC is a pain in
the ass.)

--
  Nate Duehr
  nate at natetech.com

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:05 -0600, "David Morris" <lists at morris-clan.net>
wrote:
> I have some software compiled against the libc-2.4 shared library on a
> SuSE 10 system, which we would like to run on RedHat 5.3, which uses
> libc-2.5.
> 
> The software appears to work based on initial tests (which includes
> only "does it start up?"), however my impression was that running
> software compiled for one version of libc with a different version is
> a "Bad Thing (tm)" and should be avoided....however my knowledge on
> the subject is purely anecdotal. (the actual link is to "libc.so.6")
> 
> Anyone have any documentation or experience on what compatibility
> issues we might encounter?
> 
> As a potential workaround, it occurred to me, why not just copy over
> the SuSE libc-2.4.so library and put it in a location listed in the
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH.  Would this be a viable alternative if 2.5 is likely
> to cause problems?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --David
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> Join us on IRC: lug.boulder.co.us port=6667 channel=#hackingsociety