From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Wingo Subject: Re: libc upgrade vs. incompatible locales Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:39:53 +0200 Message-ID: <87egijx352.fsf@igalia.com> References: <87vbcnb2vp.fsf@igalia.com> <871tfapi6h.fsf@netris.org> <877fp25j6g.fsf@igalia.com> <87egj0k0ld.fsf@gnu.org> <87bne26h9b.fsf@gnu.org> <87zj18h858.fsf_-_@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39195) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZWKdG-0001G3-Kf for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 04:40:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZWKdB-0006YA-ML for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 04:40:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87zj18h858.fsf_-_@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= =?utf-8?Q?=22's?= message of "Sun, 30 Aug 2015 21:46:11 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Sun 30 Aug 2015 21:46, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > The binary format for locales is dependent on the libc version. Over > the last few releases, it turned out to be compatible, but that of 2.22 > differs from that of 2.21 (a new element was added to locale categories, > according to ChangeLog.) Does this amount to a binary-incompatible change to libc? I guess not if you make sure that if you had a statically linked binary, that you set LOCPATH appropriately.... What if we built bootstrap binaries to statically link their LOCPATH ? Is that even possible? Andy