Re: glibc-compat ???
On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 05:34:20PM +0100, Robert Varga wrote: On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Steve Greenland wrote: However I don't really like 8i, since it needs much more (and it should be written as MUCH MORE) resources than 8.0.5. I know there is one aspect of using 8i on linux when compared with 8.0.5, its being free for development purposes. Robert I totaly agree with Robert. 8i is a memory hog and need X to be installed. I have RH compat packeges installed but I think having native packages is better. Or lets start persuading Oracle to release simpler Oracle version with glibc 2.1 ;-) -- Sincerely yours, Konstantin Kivi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: glibc-compat ???
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Steve Greenland wrote: On 23-Mar-00, 18:08 (CST), Andor Dirner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Robert Varga wrote: The other one it breaks is Oracle 8.0, and one needs to convert Redhat compatibility libraries to be able install it, and a patch from Oracle. FWIW, I'm running Oracle 8i (SQL*Plus reports v 8.1.5) with the latest patches (as of a month ago) on a potato box with no obvious problems, I don't have any compatibility libs installed. I said 8.0. I know 8.1.5 works with glibc2.1 since it is explicitly stated in its requirements that it needs it. Of course it should work with it. However I don't really like 8i, since it needs much more (and it should be written as MUCH MORE) resources than 8.0.5. I know there is one aspect of using 8i on linux when compared with 8.0.5, its being free for development purposes. Robert
Re: glibc-compat ???
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Robert Varga wrote: On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Eric Weigel wrote: On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote: Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs. Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros have? They're both libc 6.0 -- how would ld.so know which one you wanted? Any apps which run on 6.0 and not 6.1 are broken and should be fixed. Some things changed from 2.0 to 2.1 so that non broken binaries won't work. One I know about is stat, which is now a macro instead of a function call (breaks smbsh, even if you recompile it) Some other software doesn't work either. One I know about is IBM DB2 database. I don't know why it doesn't work, it just doesn't, and of course I don't have the source. I've thought about compatibility links, but like you said, they're both libc 6.0. Overall though, there doesn't seem to be a lot of broken stuff. The other one it breaks is Oracle 8.0, and one needs to convert Redhat compatibility libraries to be able install it, and a patch from Oracle. I have heard it also broke Applixware, but I am not sure. Robert Varga Applixware is absolutely ok. I personally run Applixware 4.4.2 on my home Potato box, on another Potato and a redhat 5.1 at the company, all of them work without any compat-packages. (Also true for Applixware 5.00M - a pre-release beta) --andor dirner Free science and free software are just two aspects of the same complex reality: long-term human survival. Support humankind, use Linux.
Re: glibc-compat ???
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Robert Varga wrote: On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Eric Weigel wrote: On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote: Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs. Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros have? They're both libc 6.0 -- how would ld.so know which one you wanted? Any apps which run on 6.0 and not 6.1 are broken and should be fixed. Some things changed from 2.0 to 2.1 so that non broken binaries won't work. One I know about is stat, which is now a macro instead of a function call (breaks smbsh, even if you recompile it) Some other software doesn't work either. One I know about is IBM DB2 database. I don't know why it doesn't work, it just doesn't, and of course I don't have the source. I've thought about compatibility links, but like you said, they're both libc 6.0. Overall though, there doesn't seem to be a lot of broken stuff. The other one it breaks is Oracle 8.0, and one needs to convert Redhat compatibility libraries to be able install it, and a patch from Oracle. I have heard it also broke Applixware, but I am not sure. Robert Varga Applixware is absolutely ok. I personally run Applixware 4.4.2 on my home Potato box, on another Potato and a redhat 5.1 at the company, all of them work without any compat-packages. (Also true for Applixware 5.00M - a pre-release beta) --andor dirner Free science and free software are just two aspects of the same complex reality: long-term human survival. Support humankind, use Linux.
Re: glibc-compat and upgrading from Slink to Potato using dselect's FTP method.
Hello all I'm near from upgrading my Slink to Potato using dselect's FTP, but I'm afraid if it can drive my system _really_ bad (broken). I tried it six months ago, and the result was a reinstalling Slink from CDs. Did anyone try this way? Worked fine? Taupter
Re: glibc-compat ???
On 23-Mar-00, 18:08 (CST), Andor Dirner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Robert Varga wrote: The other one it breaks is Oracle 8.0, and one needs to convert Redhat compatibility libraries to be able install it, and a patch from Oracle. FWIW, I'm running Oracle 8i (SQL*Plus reports v 8.1.5) with the latest patches (as of a month ago) on a potato box with no obvious problems, I don't have any compatibility libs installed. steve -- Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read every list I post to.)
Re: glibc-compat ???
Jose == Jose Marin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi all, I'm reposting this question because I didn't get any answer recently. Maybe this has been discussed before but I haven't been able to dig it up from the mailing list archives or dejanews. I'm using several machines, some with potato, some with woody. I need to install a free (as in gratis, not speech) F compiler, which needs glibc2.0 and won't work with glibc2.1. Other people with Suse or RedHat have reported the same problem, and they have fixed it installing compatibility packages containing glibc2.0. To be exact, they mention installing the compat-glibc-5.2-2.0.7.1 rpm and adding a -L/usr/i386-glibc20-linux/lib to the end of the compile line. Maybe you could use alien and install the rpm? I thing potato and woody is totally commited to 2.1 Marshal It seems we don't have such compatibility packages for Debian; what am I missing? Could one install slink's glibc2.0 in a non-obstrusive way under potato or woody? FWIW, the error messages are of this type: /usr/local/lib/F/libf90.a(open.o): In function `__NAGf90_open': open.o(.text+0xc77): undefined reference to `_fxstat' TIA, Jose -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: glibc-compat ???
It seems we don't have such compatibility packages for Debian; what am I missing? Could one install slink's glibc2.0 in a non-obstrusive way under potato or woody? Maybe you could use alien and install the rpm? I thing potato and woody is totally commited to 2.1 Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs. Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros have? I'm CC'ing this post to debian-devel (the right place to talk about this issue). Taupter
Re: glibc-compat ???
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote: Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs. Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros have? They're both libc 6.0 -- how would ld.so know which one you wanted? Any apps which run on 6.0 and not 6.1 are broken and should be fixed. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: glibc-compat ???
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote: Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs. Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros have? They're both libc 6.0 -- how would ld.so know which one you wanted? Any apps which run on 6.0 and not 6.1 are broken and should be fixed. Some things changed from 2.0 to 2.1 so that non broken binaries won't work. One I know about is stat, which is now a macro instead of a function call (breaks smbsh, even if you recompile it) Some other software doesn't work either. One I know about is IBM DB2 database. I don't know why it doesn't work, it just doesn't, and of course I don't have the source. I've thought about compatibility links, but like you said, they're both libc 6.0. Overall though, there doesn't seem to be a lot of broken stuff. -- precision of expression is more important than conformance to traditional rules
Re: glibc-compat ???
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 12:09:23PM -0500 , Eric Weigel wrote:
I've thought about compatibility links, but like you said, they're both
libc 6.0.
LD_PRELOAD
Overall though, there doesn't seem to be a lot of broken stuff.
A friend is bitching about broken aplix(sp?). Thing is, it works on RH6.1
and SuSE 6.3 , both glibc-2.1
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: glibc-compat ???
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Eric Weigel wrote: On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote: Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs. Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros have? They're both libc 6.0 -- how would ld.so know which one you wanted? Any apps which run on 6.0 and not 6.1 are broken and should be fixed. Some things changed from 2.0 to 2.1 so that non broken binaries won't work. One I know about is stat, which is now a macro instead of a function call (breaks smbsh, even if you recompile it) Some other software doesn't work either. One I know about is IBM DB2 database. I don't know why it doesn't work, it just doesn't, and of course I don't have the source. I've thought about compatibility links, but like you said, they're both libc 6.0. Overall though, there doesn't seem to be a lot of broken stuff. The other one it breaks is Oracle 8.0, and one needs to convert Redhat compatibility libraries to be able install it, and a patch from Oracle. I have heard it also broke Applixware, but I am not sure. Robert Varga
glibc-compat ???
Hi all, I'm reposting this question because I didn't get any answer recently. Maybe this has been discussed before but I haven't been able to dig it up from the mailing list archives or dejanews. I'm using several machines, some with potato, some with woody. I need to install a free (as in gratis, not speech) F compiler, which needs glibc2.0 and won't work with glibc2.1. Other people with Suse or RedHat have reported the same problem, and they have fixed it installing compatibility packages containing glibc2.0. To be exact, they mention installing the compat-glibc-5.2-2.0.7.1 rpm and adding a -L/usr/i386-glibc20-linux/lib to the end of the compile line. It seems we don't have such compatibility packages for Debian; what am I missing? Could one install slink's glibc2.0 in a non-obstrusive way under potato or woody? FWIW, the error messages are of this type: /usr/local/lib/F/libf90.a(open.o): In function `__NAGf90_open': open.o(.text+0xc77): undefined reference to `_fxstat' TIA, Jose
