On Mon, 2002-04-15 at 22:52, Jeff Newmiller wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2002, Mike Noyes wrote:
>
> > Everyone,
> > I'm still unable to decipher the libc minor version from output
> > generated by ldd. All of our packages that I have looked at so far use
> > libc major version 6. The output below is from KP's squid-2 package. He
> > states that it was compiled with glibc 2.1.3. How can I verify this from
> > the output below?
>
> You can't, unfortunately. Your goal is a hard one to reach, at least for
> me.
Jeff,
For me too. :-(
> Your original question to which I responded with the "ldd" solution did
> not specify specifically the glibc versioning problem. Sorry I didn't
> read between the lines.
It's probably my fault for incorrectly articulating the problem.
> > Output generated on shell.sf.net:
<snip>
> > Output generated on my local machine:
<very informative information removed>
> One possible avenue would be to learn what the offset of the last function
> in glibc2.0 was, and if any of the fixup offsets in an executable was
> greater than that value then that executable would be expected to break
> with glibc2.0 (when the program calls it, it would execute undefined
> opcodes). This might be extended to handle various glibc versions, but I
> suspect it would be uncomfortably closely tied to specific compilations of
> glibc.
This is probably possible, but it's beyond my ability to do.
> BTW: apparently, the number in parentheses displayed by ldd is the process
> space address at which the first byte of the library would be loaded. I
> think this is what the fixup offsets in the executable would be added to
> to get the locations of the library functions. It would probably be
> specific to each compilation of that program, and would have no direct
> value in determining the library version.
OK. Thanks for the information.
Everyone,
Apparently it's a non-trivial task to determine the minor version of
libc used for package creation. Tomorrow I'm going to start committing
our packages to cvs with the following tree structure:
bin/packages + /glibc2.0
|
+ /glibc2.1
Should I use libc6 and libc6.1 instead of glibc?
Commits will include the following information if known:
Program name:
Program version:
Packager:
Creation Date:
I'll place all of the packages that require libc.so.6 in the glibc2.0
directory. The few packages that don't depend on any libc will be placed
in the bin/packages directory. Anyone that created packages that use
glibc 2.1 please let me know about them. Look at the file below to see
my commit order.
http://leaf.sourceforge.net/pub/packages/test.txt
Comments and suggestions are welcome.
--
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
