On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:15:47 -0400 (EDT), Jim Burmeister wrote:
>Jason Chambers wrote (well, quoted):
>
>> If I create a test.java file and then invoke "javac test.java", nothing
>> happens. I just get a command prompt back. No test.class file is
>> created, no errors, no messages, nothing.
>
>A few weeks ago, when I decided to start using Java, I downloaded the JDK
>(version 1.1.6v4a) and installed it on my Red Hat 5.0 system. I had this
>exact problem. A further problem was that most other Java programs would
>cause the java runtime to segfault.
>
>I fought with it for a while (being the type of person who exhausts all
>possibilities before asking for help). Eventually, I ran across this
>section in the README.linux file:
>
> Generally, you should get the glibc version if your machine is running
> glibc, but libc5 should work acceptably as well, if you have a recent
> (say, past April 1, 1998) version of the glibc library installed on
> your machine (RedHat 5.0 by default comes with an older version of glibc,
> you need to get the 2.0.7-7 version from RedHat to win).
>
>Even though this text referred to a different case than my setup (it talks
>of running the libc5 version of JDK, not the glibc version), I decided to
>try upgrading my C libraries to see if it would help. So I downloaded the
>latest glibc update packages from ftp.redhat.com (glibc-2.0.7-19) and
>installed them. Once I did that, the JDK worked flawlessly.
The wording is not too good in that section. The updating is needed
also for older glibc systems if you want to run the JDK.
>Can we get an official answer from someone on the porting team to the
>following questions:
>
>1. Should the latest version of the JDK for glibc work on a stock Red Hat
> Linux 5.0 machine? It would appear the answer to this is "no", since I
> and others have had problems.
I would think that it could have problems given the scope of bug fixes
that have been done in glibc. If you look at the list, it really sounds
like an update to glibc 2.0.7-19 would be a very good idea.
It is too bad that some popular older releases may need updating but
the fact is that the code continues to evolve and important fixes
are being made to the glibc code base.
>2. If the answer to #1 is "no", is the recommended solution to update the
> glibc package on your system? While this was the solution I found, the
> previous poster noted that some people would rather not make such a
> drastic change to their system unless absolutely necessary.
Given the fixes (both security related and otherwise) this is a very
good idea. There are fixes that have to do with time zones, threading,
and lots and lots of security and exploit fixes.
>3. If the user does not wish to upgrade their C library, is there a workaround
> (I've seen talk of doing stuff with the C libraries in the green_threads
> directory, but didn't try it since I had already solved the problem).
> Or, is the Red Hat 5.0 glibc package sufficiently broken that the only
> solution is to upgrade?
Well, it may be that if they don't want to upgrade glibc then doing libc5
may work, but even that may be a problem.
Even Red Hat claims that you need the May 28th, 1998 release of glibc
to be compatible with future security fixes in other modules. This
includes the JDK.
>4. Once official answers to these questions are determined, I think they
> should be explained clearly in README.linux. I looked at the v5 version
> of this file, and no new information on this subject was added since v4a,
> when I fought with the problem.
Since you most resently fought with the problem, what is the best answer
here? (Other than to fix the wording to recommend to update to a known
working version of glibc. 2.0.7-19 seems to be a good one)
Michael Sinz -- Director of Research & Development, NextBus Inc.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --------- http://www.nextbus.com
My place on the web ---> http://www.users.fast.net/~michael_sinz
