On Sunday 14 April 2002 11:53, Mike Noyes wrote: > Jeff & Lynn, > Thanks for the help. :-) > > Jeff, > I modified your script, and added Lynn's awk line. I hope I didn't > muck it up to bad.
Looks OK to me if the output is correct. > Everyone, > Is there a reason that our packages don't contain the program name in > the version file? The majority of packages seem to work that way.... I imagine that they were done this way since you should already know the 'basename' to check the version #. The package listing you're making would be the first time that we've had a good reason for implicitly putting the packagename in the version file. Adding: echo 'basename $1' should give the packagename if you want that in the output as well. > I've been looking at the ldd output, and I'm having a hard time > figuring out how to determine glibc versions from its output. The > best I've come up with is to look for the presence of libm.so.6. Is > that correct? libc.so.6 was used as far back as libc-2.0.x from what I could find. I couldn't locate if it was actually in libc-2.0.x or backported from later release of libc for compatibility. Anyone that has worked making any libc-2.1+ packages probably knows. -- ~Lynn Avants aka Guitarlynn guitarlynn at users.sourceforge.net http://leaf.sourceforge.net If linux isn't the answer, you've probably got the wrong question! _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
