> No "glibc binary" that could have been even theoretically compiled within the past few decades will fail to run because of this issue. That's obviously not t

> No "glibc binary" that could have been even theoretically compiled within the past few decades will fail to run because of this issue. That's obviously not true. The entire story is how a new glibc binary broke existing binaries. > What happened is that this EAC product had reverse-engineered the internal formats glibc Okay I missed this; I thought EAC was parsing the libc binary as per ELF. What was reverse engineered? > it is simply not possible for any software product to anticipate all possible external users of its internal implementation details Correct. Which is why I never asked for stuff that never breaks. What is important is that when stuff is found to break, the breakage and refusal to provide backwards compatibility has a compelling reason. glibc's justifications here are laughable; they're spending more effort to not revert the breakage than it would take to fix. Which is kinda why the story blew up.