No, minimum required is still 2.14 in your example.

Here is ldd output on a centos 6.9 image for 1.4.0 and 1.5.1, where 1.4.0 will work and 1.5.1 does not due to missing required lib:

[root@d7a5a938ee73 amd64]# ldd -v liblz4-java.so 
ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `./liblz4-java.so'
	linux-vdso.so.1 =>  (0x00007ffc491d8000)
	libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f659964d000)
	/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f6599bee000)

	Version information:
	./liblz4-java.so:
		libc.so.6 (GLIBC_2.2.5) => /lib64/libc.so.6
	/lib64/libc.so.6:
		ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (GLIBC_PRIVATE) => /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
		ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (GLIBC_2.3) => /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2

[root@d7a5a938ee73 amd64]# ldd -v liblz4-java.so 
ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `./liblz4-java.so'
./liblz4-java.so: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by ./liblz4-java.so)
	linux-vdso.so.1 =>  (0x00007fff61b25000)
	libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f0416bd6000)
	/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f041719a000)

	Version information:
	./liblz4-java.so:
		libc.so.6 (GLIBC_2.14) => not found
		libc.so.6 (GLIBC_2.4) => /lib64/libc.so.6
		libc.so.6 (GLIBC_2.2.5) => /lib64/libc.so.6
	/lib64/libc.so.6:
		ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (GLIBC_PRIVATE) => /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
		ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (GLIBC_2.3) => /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2

Add minimum glibc version to each release #160

Description

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions