libc 2.4 instead of 2.4.0 causing configure scripts to break.
jakub at redhat.com
Wed May 31 06:36:51 UTC 2006
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:04:39AM -0400, Omri Schwarz wrote:
> What it does is determine libc version by running
> /lib/libc.so.(version) and putting that through a sed one liner
> that expects three version numbers. Fedora 5 right now has binaries
> for /lib/libc.so.6 that give a two number version: 2.4
> I have a software package with 38 configure scripts, all of which
> contain this stanza, and by Paul Bunyan's beard I swear, the perl
> one liner to edit all of them to change the version=... is defeating me...
> Lots of developers for lots of products expect three number versions for
> libc. Should Fedora perhaps return to that convention?
That's not a fedora decision, this is the way upstream glibc is numbered.
glibc 2.3 (back in fall 2002) was also 2.3, not 2.3.0 (the libraries were
/lib*/lib*-2.3.so etc.), the upcoming glibc will be 2.5 and there are
actually no plans to do 3 digit numbered glibcs anymore (except that
development snapshots are 2.x.9y), though of course you shouldn't rely on
So, definitely fix all the crappy scripts (btw, why aren't they
and looking at __GLIBC__ and __GLIBC_MINOR__ macros?).
More information about the test