> glibc has changed in september, so you are compiling with a newer > glibc while the insmod which has worked for me was probably compiled > with an older glibc, than the one compiled with the present insmod.
Yes, that is correct. However, the presently available insmod was also built with an older glibc and is (as far as I can tell) incompatible with the latest glibc. Rebuilding modutils worked fine, though, even with the new glibc. > I was also told that autofs compiled with libc5 (not glibc) works fine. Haven't tried that; thanks for the tip. > to follows their lead rather the other way round. Instead of > experimenting with an unstable glibc, would it is better trying to > fill in all the missing packages in the sparc tree (there are a lot of > them) ? Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately, this isn't an option, since the stable glibc doesn't support sparc. RedHat has backported most of the sparc code to the older, stable glibc. That is what they have been using for RH 5.1 on sparcs. When Debian started porting to sparcs this was not available, so they started using the betas. At this point, since so much work has been put into dealing with the beta glibc and since things will go that way eventually anyway it may not be worth it to switch to RedHat's version of glibc. -- Mike "No .sig for you" Shuey
