On Sun, 2002-04-14 at 11:40, guitarlynn wrote: > On Sunday 14 April 2002 11:53, Mike Noyes wrote: > > 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.
Lynn, It appears to be. All of the packages I've run it on generated acceptable output. The awk line complains when there is no .version file, but that's ok. > > 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. What I want is the program name, not the package name. As you correctly stated above, the package name is already known. > Adding: echo 'basename $1' should give the packagename > if you want that in the output as well. Thanks. :-) > > 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. So, how do I determine the glibc version? Do I have to use the hex number, and find a reference that will list the various versions? Any help is appreciated. -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
