[parisc-linux] glibc 2.1.94 CVS merge, packages on the way, ABI breakage :(

[David Huggins-Daines]

Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> writes:

> You never should have GLIBC_2.0 symbols.  The shlib-versions file
> should have GLIBC_2.2 as the earliest version (third column).

Ah, I see what the problem is.  It seems that it is my fault :(

I take it that libc.so, libm.so, and ld.so should all be versioned
with GLIBC_2.2 as the base, then?

-- 
dhd@linuxcare.com, http://www.linuxcare.com/
Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.