> ----------
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 18 June 1999 15:08
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Libc 5 or 6?
>
>
>
> On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Maurice Hendrix wrote:
>
> > I've been reading /usr/src/linux/Documentation/Changes. I found two
> things.
> > First, it doesn't document changes to the kernel from patch to patch.
> Where
> > *can* I find this info? Keeping the patch files just to be able to
> review
> > what was changed is a pain.
> >
> > The documentation is not entirely clear about Libc. It says you need
> Libc 5
> > version <something>. It also says you need Libc 6 version
> <something-else>.
> >
> > What is the difference between Libc 5 and Libc 6?
> > Do I need them *both* or *either*?
>
> You need whichever one the app you are trying to run expects. Most
> systems have both.
>
> > According /usr/src/linux/Documentation/Changes I should do 'ls -l
> > /lib/libc*'. But if the version number is not encoded in the filename,
> that
> > won't help.
>
> The versionn number _is_ included in the file name. Always. Do ls -l
> /lib/libc* and see what you get.
>
> > So, how do I find out the version number if the file is called
> > /lib/libc.so.6 ?
> >
> ls -l /lib/libc.so.6
>
> libc.so.6 is a symbolic to the real libc file, probably libc-2.0.6.so or
> something. :-).
>
> I beg to differ. On *my* system (SuSE 6.1) I get this:
>
> # ls -l /lib/libc*
>
> -rwxrwxr-x 1 root devel 2475225 Apr 15 01:57 /lib/libc.so.6
> -rwxrwxr-x 1 root devel 85427 Apr 15 02:00 /lib/libcrypt.so.1
>
> So, which version do I have then?
>
> --
> Maurice Hendrix
>
