updating glibc

[Robert Serphillips]

Excellent question. I was just thinking the same thing. I'm using YDL 2.0 but really the only difference between my setup and ydl2.2 is the Glibc packages.

So, would all binaries compiled against 2.2.1 break or would only binaries statically linked to them break?

-Rob

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:06:53 +0100
"michael baron (IAH-P)" <michael.baron@bbsrc.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
> I am running YDL 2.0, fairly vanilla 'developer' install, apart from a whole
> lot of molecular biology software I have compiled and installed.
> 
> I would like to install a file manager (DFM), but it requires glibc>2.2.3,
> and YDL 2.0 has only glibc 2.2.1. THE QUESTION is, of course, if I am going
> to break my whole system by upgrading to a more recent version of glibc. If
> I am going to have to update the entire distro, I think I might just leave
> it.
> 
> I have found instructions for updating  glibc to 2.2.4-4h, along with gcc,
> binutils and nscd, for YDL2.1 users, so this would appear to be an
> interdependent group of packages, so I could easily update those.
> 
> Anyone done this, or know reasons why it is a Bad Idea? I am aware that
> there were big changes in the early days of glibc, but surely new versions
> should be backwards compatible at least a couple of changes at the third
> version decimal?
> 
> Thanks for any advice in advance,
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
> Michael D. Baron Ph.D.
> Senior Research Scientist
> Institute for Animal Health
> Ash Road,
> Pirbright,
> Surrey GU24 0NF,
> U.K.
> _______________________________________________
> yellowdog-general mailing list
> yellowdog-general@lists.terrasoftsolutions.com
> http://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/mailman/listinfo/yellowdog-general