Re: FW: [EmperorLinux-os-RedHat] do not use : GLIBC update packages ( from Red Hat Network)
Net Llama! wrote: Well, then i must just be lucky, because I didn't need to go through any of that ordeal. All I had to do was upgrade to the last glibc release (late yesterday) and the problems created by the former (from early yesterday) were solved. Granted, I'm using my own 2.4.22-xfs kernel, and not Redhat's, so perhaps that is why i'm not as plagued by this fiasco as others. I have my self rolled 2.4.22 kernel too with some mutimedia patches (low latency etc). I guess, in my case it might have been an i368 vs. i686 issue: glibc rpm is one of the rare packages supplied in architecture specific versions, and I fear, apt-get (which otherwise I highly praise) didn't handle this correctly and upgraded ...i686 to ... i383. I can't reproduce this now, but I will keep an eye on apt-get in this respect. Klaus ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: FW: [EmperorLinux-os-RedHat] do not use : GLIBC update packages ( from Red Hat Network)
Net Llama! wrote: What last time? Let's not play revisionist historians, ok? But there IS a history, dating back to April, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88456 and updating glibc to glibc-2.3.2-27.9.6 hosed my system, rendering it unbootable. For all co-victims, here's the steps that finally reanimated my RH9 box, quoted from http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/archive/5/2oo3/05/4/57607 1) insert CD RedHat 9.0 disk 1 into CDROM 2) boot computer from CD 3) type linux rescue in the installation prompt 4) answer few questions about language and network settings, then press Continue when asked about old system mounting to /mnt/sysimage 5) when you get shell prompt, type mount to check if CD is mounted to /mnt/source and old system is mounted to /mnt/sysimage 6) type rpm -ivh --force --root /mnt/sysimage /mnt/source/RedHat/RPMS/glibc-2.3.2-11.9.i686.rpm /mnt/source/RedHat/RPMS/glibc-common-2.3.2-11.9.i386.rpm to reinstall original glibc 7) type chroot /mnt/sysimage to check if you can get old root instead of usual Segmentation fault, then simply type exit twice to exit from shells and reboot computer. Enjoy. :) After that I (K.) booted into runlevel 3 and, as root, did an up2date glibc glibc-devel which gave me the most recent glibc-2.3.2-27.9.7 and it's associates. Klaus ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: FW: [EmperorLinux-os-RedHat] do not use : GLIBC update packages ( from Red Hat Network)
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Klaus-Peter Schrage wrote: Net Llama! wrote: What last time? Let's not play revisionist historians, ok? But there IS a history, dating back to April, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88456 and updating glibc to glibc-2.3.2-27.9.6 hosed my system, rendering it unbootable. For all co-victims, here's the steps that finally reanimated my RH9 box, quoted from http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/archive/5/2oo3/05/4/57607 Well, then i must just be lucky, because I didn't need to go through any of that ordeal. All I had to do was upgrade to the last glibc release (late yesterday) and the problems created by the former (from early yesterday) were solved. Granted, I'm using my own 2.4.22-xfs kernel, and not Redhat's, so perhaps that is why i'm not as plagued by this fiasco as others. -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: [EmperorLinux-os-RedHat] do not use : GLIBC update packages ( from Red Hat Network)
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Collins Richey wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:05:05 -0500 Kurt Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Consuming 0.8K bytes, Net Llama! blathered: On 11/13/03 17:04, dep wrote: quoth Kurt Wall: | Consuming 2.3K bytes, Net Llama! blathered: | I can vouch for this. My RH9 box is trashed as a result. | | [badly borken glibc] | | Whoops! leave it to redhat. what was it last time? gcc-2.7.6 or something? What last time? Let's not play revisionist historians, ok? Indeed. GCC 2.96; glibc 2.0.7; NPTL; problems running RPM on kernel 2.5. Shall I continue? I'm curious. Until last year I had avoided RH like the plague. Were these glitches only for desktop users, or did they propagate all the fubars to their server releases as well? Up until recently, Redhat didn't have a distinct server release. It was the numbered releases, and that was all. Ironicly, the Advanced Server and Enterprise Server product line has been completely uneffected by this mess, so Redhat seems to be capable of delivering sane, stable packages when they find it justifiable. gcc-2.96 from RH-7.0 is the only package that I've run into on Redhat (long ago) that had some severe problems. NPTL was contraversial, however it certainly wasn't unstable, or broken. Redhat never released a 2.5.x kernel, so anyone having problems with RPM on that kernel has self-inflicted wounds that are not redhat's fault. I'm not at all familiar with a glibc-2.0.7 issue, primarily because that had to have occured before i had started using Linux back in late 1998. -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
FW: [EmperorLinux-os-RedHat] do not use : GLIBC update packages ( from Red Hat Network)
Folks, Since we've been talking about updates, I got this today from the Emperor Linux folks, who installed RH on a couple of work laptops. -Original Message- Customers running Red Hat 9.0, Red Hat has recently released a badly broken automatic update of GLIBC and nptl onto their Red Hat Network (RHN) service. Please _DO_NOT_ download this update onto your system, nor any other associated updates. We have received quite a few reports already from our customers that the GLIBC update has broken their RH9 systems. Symptoms include: - Inability to log in to X with Gnome - Can't startx if gnome is your WM - rpm broken (can't open pkg database) - breaks anything useing gthread-posix.c / pthread_getschedparam I installed the glibc, nscd, and nptl-devel stuff all using redhat network. At that point, things started going wrong. rpm would no longer work. I tried a reboot, and was then no longer able to log in via X except via a failsafe mode. (Both failsafe and console still worked, although even in those logins rpm was still broken.) At this time we are working for a fix for these problems. The final fix should probably come from Red Hat, but that may take some time. We will try to get this fixed as soon as possible. It appears that KDE is unaffected (so you can still get into your system to work). -- Lincoln In Harmony's Way and In A Chord, Tom ;-}) Tom Condon Registered Linux User #154358 Plain Text Emails Don't Spread Virii! ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: FW: [EmperorLinux-os-RedHat] do not use : GLIBC update packages ( from Red Hat Network)
I can vouch for this. My RH9 box is trashed as a result. On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Condon Thomas A KPWA wrote: Folks, Since we've been talking about updates, I got this today from the Emperor Linux folks, who installed RH on a couple of work laptops. -Original Message- Customers running Red Hat 9.0, Red Hat has recently released a badly broken automatic update of GLIBC and nptl onto their Red Hat Network (RHN) service. Please _DO_NOT_ download this update onto your system, nor any other associated updates. We have received quite a few reports already from our customers that the GLIBC update has broken their RH9 systems. Symptoms include: - Inability to log in to X with Gnome - Can't startx if gnome is your WM - rpm broken (can't open pkg database) - breaks anything useing gthread-posix.c / pthread_getschedparam I installed the glibc, nscd, and nptl-devel stuff all using redhat network. At that point, things started going wrong. rpm would no longer work. I tried a reboot, and was then no longer able to log in via X except via a failsafe mode. (Both failsafe and console still worked, although even in those logins rpm was still broken.) At this time we are working for a fix for these problems. The final fix should probably come from Red Hat, but that may take some time. We will try to get this fixed as soon as possible. It appears that KDE is unaffected (so you can still get into your system to work). -- Lincoln In Harmony's Way and In A Chord, Tom ;-}) Tom Condon Registered Linux User #154358 Plain Text Emails Don't Spread Virii! ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: FW: [EmperorLinux-os-RedHat] do not use : GLIBC update packages ( from Red Hat Network)
For once I'm glad I procrastinated about installing a security update. Thanks, Michael Condon Thomas A KPWA wrote: Folks, Since we've been talking about updates, I got this today from the Emperor Linux folks, who installed RH on a couple of work laptops. -Original Message- Customers running Red Hat 9.0, Red Hat has recently released a badly broken automatic update of GLIBC and nptl onto their Red Hat Network (RHN) service. Please _DO_NOT_ download this update onto your system, nor any other associated updates. We have received quite a few reports already from our customers that the GLIBC update has broken their RH9 systems. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: FW: [EmperorLinux-os-RedHat] do not use : GLIBC update packages ( from Red Hat Network)
Redhat did re-release the packages about an hour ago. Fixed my problems on RH9. On 11/13/03 14:32, Michael Hipp wrote: For once I'm glad I procrastinated about installing a security update. Thanks, Michael Condon Thomas A KPWA wrote: Folks, Since we've been talking about updates, I got this today from the Emperor Linux folks, who installed RH on a couple of work laptops. -Original Message- Customers running Red Hat 9.0, Red Hat has recently released a badly broken automatic update of GLIBC and nptl onto their Red Hat Network (RHN) service. Please _DO_NOT_ download this update onto your system, nor any other associated updates. We have received quite a few reports already from our customers that the GLIBC update has broken their RH9 systems. -- ~ L. Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo:http://netllama.ipfox.com 3:30pm up 14:17, 2 users, load average: 0.18, 0.27, 0.51 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: FW: [EmperorLinux-os-RedHat] do not use : GLIBC update packages ( from Red Hat Network)
Net Llama! wrote: Redhat did re-release the packages about an hour ago. Fixed my problems on RH9. That's a pretty quick response. Kudos to 'em. Michael ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: FW: [EmperorLinux-os-RedHat] do not use : GLIBC update packages ( from Red Hat Network)
Consuming 2.3K bytes, Net Llama! blathered: I can vouch for this. My RH9 box is trashed as a result. [badly borken glibc] Whoops! Kurt -- Are you a turtle? ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: FW: [EmperorLinux-os-RedHat] do not use : GLIBC update packages ( from Red Hat Network)
quoth Kurt Wall: | Consuming 2.3K bytes, Net Llama! blathered: | I can vouch for this. My RH9 box is trashed as a result. | | [badly borken glibc] | | Whoops! leave it to redhat. what was it last time? gcc-2.7.6 or something? -- dep Writing takes no time. It's finding something to say that takes forever. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: FW: [EmperorLinux-os-RedHat] do not use : GLIBC update packages ( from Red Hat Network)
On 11/13/03 17:04, dep wrote: quoth Kurt Wall: | Consuming 2.3K bytes, Net Llama! blathered: | I can vouch for this. My RH9 box is trashed as a result. | | [badly borken glibc] | | Whoops! leave it to redhat. what was it last time? gcc-2.7.6 or something? What last time? Let's not play revisionist historians, ok? -- ~ L. Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo:http://netllama.ipfox.com 5:10pm up 15:57, 1 user, load average: 0.17, 0.30, 0.46 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: FW: [EmperorLinux-os-RedHat] do not use : GLIBC update packages ( from Red Hat Network)
Consuming 0.8K bytes, Net Llama! blathered: On 11/13/03 17:04, dep wrote: quoth Kurt Wall: | Consuming 2.3K bytes, Net Llama! blathered: | I can vouch for this. My RH9 box is trashed as a result. | | [badly borken glibc] | | Whoops! leave it to redhat. what was it last time? gcc-2.7.6 or something? What last time? Let's not play revisionist historians, ok? Indeed. GCC 2.96; glibc 2.0.7; NPTL; problems running RPM on kernel 2.5. Shall I continue? Kurt -- It is better for civilization to be going down the drain than to be coming up it. -- Henry Allen ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: [EmperorLinux-os-RedHat] do not use : GLIBC update packages ( from Red Hat Network)
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:05:05 -0500 Kurt Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Consuming 0.8K bytes, Net Llama! blathered: On 11/13/03 17:04, dep wrote: quoth Kurt Wall: | Consuming 2.3K bytes, Net Llama! blathered: | I can vouch for this. My RH9 box is trashed as a result. | | [badly borken glibc] | | Whoops! leave it to redhat. what was it last time? gcc-2.7.6 or something? What last time? Let's not play revisionist historians, ok? Indeed. GCC 2.96; glibc 2.0.7; NPTL; problems running RPM on kernel 2.5. Shall I continue? I actually had fairly good results with fedora and RH7.3, but RH does have a few well recorded problems. Oh well, someone on the list used to fault me for my bleeding edge gentoo. Life has been pretty stable on the bleeding edge. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: [EmperorLinux-os-RedHat] do not use : GLIBC update packages ( from Red Hat Network)
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:05:05 -0500 Kurt Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Consuming 0.8K bytes, Net Llama! blathered: On 11/13/03 17:04, dep wrote: quoth Kurt Wall: | Consuming 2.3K bytes, Net Llama! blathered: | I can vouch for this. My RH9 box is trashed as a result. | | [badly borken glibc] | | Whoops! leave it to redhat. what was it last time? gcc-2.7.6 or something? What last time? Let's not play revisionist historians, ok? Indeed. GCC 2.96; glibc 2.0.7; NPTL; problems running RPM on kernel 2.5. Shall I continue? I'm curious. Until last year I had avoided RH like the plague. Were these glitches only for desktop users, or did they propagate all the fubars to their server releases as well? -- Collins Richey - Denver Area if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc question
On Tuesday 21 October 2003 06:09 pm, Kurt Wall wrote: Quoth Tony Alfrey: Yes, I read the SXS. My principle question is . . . if I have applications complied earlier against glibc-2.2.1 and I install glibc-2.2.4, will the applications now crash? No. Going the other way -- apps compiled against 2.2.4 running on a 2.2.1 system -- might not run, though. I think that's probably OK if I change to 2.2.4 Thanks. -- Tony Alfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd Rather Be Sailing ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc question
Quoth Tony Alfrey: Yes, I read the SXS. My principle question is . . . if I have applications complied earlier against glibc-2.2.1 and I install glibc-2.2.4, will the applications now crash? No. Going the other way -- apps compiled against 2.2.4 running on a 2.2.1 system -- might not run, though. Kurt -- A bird in the bush usually has a friend in there with him. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
glibc question
Hi; I've got an app that wants libc.so.6 (which I have) but it tells me that it wants the version from glibc-2.2.4, while I have something a little older, like glibc-2.2.1. glibc-2.2.4 and all its parts is a big thing (maybe over 10 MB) and I seem to remember from the list that upgrading this is a box breaker if not done right and that the suggestion was that it is easier just to get a distro with this already part of the installation. Is my memory correct or is this something that actually slides in with ease? Thanks! -- Tony Alfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd Rather Be Sailing ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc question
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Tony Alfrey wrote: Hi; I've got an app that wants libc.so.6 (which I have) but it tells me that it wants the version from glibc-2.2.4, while I have something a little older, like glibc-2.2.1. glibc-2.2.4 and all its parts is a big thing (maybe over 10 MB) and I seem to remember from the list that upgrading this is a box breaker if not done right and that the suggestion was that it is easier just to get a distro with this already part of the installation. Is my memory correct or is this something that actually slides in with ease? No, your memory is correct, although upgrading glibc isn't neccesarily hard, its just not simple either. -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc question
On Monday 20 October 2003 05:03 am, Net Llama! wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Tony Alfrey wrote: Hi; I've got an app that wants libc.so.6 (which I have) but it tells me that it wants the version from glibc-2.2.4, while I have something a little older, like glibc-2.2.1. glibc-2.2.4 and all its parts is a big thing (maybe over 10 MB) and I seem to remember from the list that upgrading this is a box breaker if not done right and that the suggestion was that it is easier just to get a distro with this already part of the installation. Is my memory correct or is this something that actually slides in with ease? No, your memory is correct, although upgrading glibc isn't neccesarily hard, its just not simple either. Yes, I read the SXS. My principle question is . . . if I have applications complied earlier against glibc-2.2.1 and I install glibc-2.2.4, will the applications now crash? Thanks. -- Tony Alfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd Rather Be Sailing ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc question
On Monday 20 October 2003 07:31 am, Net Llama! wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Tony Alfrey wrote: snip Yes, I read the SXS. My principle question is . . . if I have applications complied earlier against glibc-2.2.1 and I install glibc-2.2.4, will the applications now crash? No. You're not removing glibc-2.2.1, you're just adding glibc-2.2.4. Ah Hah! I guess I didn't read it that well. Very good! I will study it again and proceed VERY carefully. Thanks! -- Tony Alfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd Rather Be Sailing ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc question
Net Llama! wrote: No. You're not removing glibc-2.2.1, you're just adding glibc-2.2.4. Have you tried the old symlink trick? -- Leon A. Goldstein Powered by Libranet 2.8 Debian Linux System G2 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc question
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Leon Goldstein wrote: Net Llama! wrote: No. You're not removing glibc-2.2.1, you're just adding glibc-2.2.4. Have you tried the old symlink trick? Which trick is that? -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Upgrading gcc and glibc (agian)
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 15:52:58 -0700, Net Llama! wrote: snip I assume that you're referring to the two entries that i wrote. Yes, those are the ones. Thanks for writing them and for responding so promptly to my post. As far as gcc is concerned, yes its that easy. Its damn hard to wreck your box by not building gcc right. I can see that the build itself should be straighforward. I had, in fact, successfully compiled gcc 3.x previously, but did not install it becauseof the concerns I mentioned. In particular I have read that gcc 2.x and 3.x are C++ binary incompatible. I may be wrong (which is why I am asking questions), but I understand this to mean that I may, for example, have C++ lib.foo on my system compiled under 2.x, together with applications compiled and dynamically linked against it. Now I install gcc 3.x and try to compile some new application. It won't compile (or maybe run?) against lib.foo because of the incompatibility, so I recompile lib.foo with 3.x. Now my existing applications won't link dynamically to lib.foo, so I have to recompile them. In itself this is not a very big deal - but I can imagine having an entertaining time tracking down problems in cases where there may be multiple dependencies. I believe that there are relatively sophisticated ways around these problems - by maintaining different library versions and changing makefiles accordingly, but (keen as I am), that really is beyond me - and in any case I have a living to earn - much of it from my linux box. As for glibc, its relatively safe, but there's always a possibility of disaster. Ironically, just today, i completely wrecked a box that was running Redhat-6.2, where i tried to upgrade straight to glibc-2.2.5 (it was runnning 2.1.2). But, most of that problem was just the enormity of the upgrade, as nothing else had been upgraded yet. I've successfully upgraded several other boxes' glibc without a hitch. While there are always going to be some exceptions, most things will _not_ need to be recompiled after upgrading glibc. Of course it also heavily depends on what version of glibc you have, and which you're upgrading to. rpm will have to be recompiled, as it depends heavily on glibc's locale libraries. zlib (and anything that depends on it) might also have to be recompiled. But none of that is a showstopper, and won't incapacitate your box if you can't get to it right away. Well, as said, I am going from glibc 2.2.5 to (I suppose), 2.3.2. It may be an advantage that I run LFS, so 95% of everthing on my system was compiled locally and I have a pretty good understanding of the geography of what I have. I don't even have rpm on the box. I suppose, however, that I hanker after some kind of certainty - a set of instructions telling me precisely what will have to be recompiled so that I can get on and do it rather than wait and see what does or does not break. I my system well backed up - so I am not worried about losing it - but I don't want to get started only to screw up because the sxs guidance is assuming something(s) I don't know. Well, i don't know what you don't know :) It would fill encyclopaedias. If you've got questions, or special circumstances, please ask. We're all hear to help. Thanks again. Geoff ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Upgrading gcc and glibc (agian)
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:34:02 -0400, Kurt Wall wrote: snip Thanks for responding Kurt. As the Llama wrote, you'd be hard-pressed to toast a running system just by upgrading GCC - the default installation procedure installs the new one into /usr/local, which keeps it from becoming the system compiler and keeps the potential for self-inflicted damages to a minimum. So, yes, installing GCC really is that easy; no, you won't have to recompile your libraries or applications. This is one area in which the received or conventional wisdom is incorrect. However, it wasn't always that way, and it is the memories of The Way It Used To Be (tm) that formed conventional wisdom. You will see that I have responded to the Llama on most of this. If you have any comments on what I wrote there, I will be glad to see them. snip Unless you need something in the newer library that can't be shoehorned into the system without upgrading the entire library, I don't recommend doing so. An upgrade of this sort is not for the faint of heart. I am not at all sure that I (yet) need anything in the current glibc. I have read the changelog and did not see anything I needed, but the writers of changelogs are usually masters of understatement and I could very easily miss something. I have limited opportunities (during holidays), to spend the time making major changes to a system that I use in my work on a daily basis. Several of the applications I run have recently begun to require gcc 3.x and I thought that, whilst I was installing that, I might as well go the whole hog and give myself a little future-proofing against the same thing happening with glibc. I have my system well backed up - so I am not worried about losing it - but I don't want to get started only to screw up because the sxs guidance is assuming something(s) I don't know. I might be overly cautious - I've broken systems many times upgrading the C library - but I would test the upgrade procedure you intend to use on a system you don't mind rebuilding if it goes badly before risking a more important box. Famous last words, but I am pretty confident about my backup and rescue procedures, which I test regularly. As it happens another hdd has just been released from an obsolete box I have, and I will replicate my system to that and use it for any experiments. Thanks again, Geoff ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Upgrading gcc and glibc (agian)
On 08/02/03 01:25, Geoff wrote: On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 15:52:58 -0700, Net Llama! wrote: As far as gcc is concerned, yes its that easy. Its damn hard to wreck your box by not building gcc right. I can see that the build itself should be straighforward. I had, in fact, successfully compiled gcc 3.x previously, but did not install it becauseof the concerns I mentioned. In particular I have read that gcc 2.x and 3.x are C++ binary incompatible. I may be wrong (which is why I am asking questions), but I understand this to mean that I may, for example, have C++ lib.foo on my system compiled under 2.x, together with applications compiled and dynamically linked against it. Now I install gcc 3.x and try to compile some new application. It won't compile (or maybe run?) against lib.foo because of the incompatibility, so I recompile lib.foo with 3.x. Now my existing applications won't link dynamically to lib.foo, so I have to recompile them. In itself this is not a very big deal - but I can imagine having an entertaining time tracking down problems in cases where there may be multiple dependencies. I believe that there are relatively sophisticated ways around these problems - by maintaining different library versions and changing makefiles accordingly, but (keen as I am), that really is beyond me - and in any case I have a living to earn - much of it from my linux box. Kurt is definitely much more of an expert on this than I. I also remember reading about this, but haven't yet run into it. This is just one of those forward looking issues that i've yet to experience. There are no backward looking issues though. As for glibc, its relatively safe, but there's always a possibility of disaster. Ironically, just today, i completely wrecked a box that was running Redhat-6.2, where i tried to upgrade straight to glibc-2.2.5 (it was runnning 2.1.2). But, most of that problem was just the enormity of the upgrade, as nothing else had been upgraded yet. I've successfully upgraded several other boxes' glibc without a hitch. While there are always going to be some exceptions, most things will _not_ need to be recompiled after upgrading glibc. Of course it also heavily depends on what version of glibc you have, and which you're upgrading to. rpm will have to be recompiled, as it depends heavily on glibc's locale libraries. zlib (and anything that depends on it) might also have to be recompiled. But none of that is a showstopper, and won't incapacitate your box if you can't get to it right away. Well, as said, I am going from glibc 2.2.5 to (I suppose), 2.3.2. It may be an advantage that I run LFS, so 95% of everthing on my system was compiled locally and I have a pretty good understanding of the geography of what I have. I don't even have rpm on the box. I suppose, however, that I hanker after some kind of certainty - a set of instructions telling me precisely what will have to be recompiled so that I can get on and do it rather than wait and see what does or does not break. Its impossible to tell you everything that needs to be recompiled, since there are essentially an infinite number of possibilities. All i can mention are the things i've run into, which are rpm, zlib, bzip2 binutils. Thus far, everything else has worked. If you can get gcc glibc upgraded and still be able to go about your day to day activities, then you should be out of the woods. As Kurt mentioned, at this time there aren't really many advantages to having the latest greatest, other than having the latest greatest. So if you aren't comfortable, then don't do it. -- ~ L. Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo:http://netllama.ipfox.com 7:00am up 18 days, 9:42, 1 user, load average: 0.14, 0.19, 0.09 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Upgrading gcc and glibc (agian) OT
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 09:25:43 +0100 Geoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ most of discussion snipped ] ... In particular I have read that gcc 2.x and 3.x are C++ binary incompatible. I may be wrong (which is why I am asking questions), but I understand this to mean that I may, for example, have C++ lib.foo on my system compiled under 2.x, together with applications compiled and dynamically linked against it. Now I install gcc 3.x and try to compile some new application. It won't compile (or maybe run?) against lib.foo because of the incompatibility, so I recompile lib.foo with 3.x. Now my existing applications won't link dynamically to lib.foo, so I have to recompile them. In itself this is not a very big deal - but I can imagine having an entertaining time tracking down problems in cases where there may be multiple dependencies. Yes, you are likely to encounter all of the above, and no, there is no quick fix. I do have a permanent solution to offer: install gentoo. I have nothing against LFS - a perfectly fine distro, and a good learning experience, but using LFS means that you must become your own dependancy wizard (time and again). I'm basically lazy. Although it is a matter of reading interest to know that package A depends upon B that depends upon libs D E F which may in turn break package G etc., I don't want to deal with that myself. For that work, I've hired a world wide team of subject matter experts at a very reasonable price (namely zippo): the gentoo development team. My last install (probably ever, except for experimentation) was about 2 1/2 years ago. Now my gentoo stable system is up to GCC 3.2.3 and glibc 2.3.2-r1 which is leading but not bleeding edge. During that time I've seen at least four new releases of RH, Mandrake, SuSE, etc. to cope with new functionality, and I'm sure LHS has had at least one release. Meanwhile, my system has been reliably and incrementally upgraded as new functionality is tested and offered by gentoo. Gentoo offers new releases, too, but these are only needed for new installs. Existing users get the new functionality gradually. It will take you about a week to put up a complete system and a little longer to get used to the unique things in gentoo, but you'll never need to wipe clean and uprade your system again, nor will you need to worry much about dependancies. At least 90% of the packages you may be interested in have a gentoo ebuild available. Any others you can install manually in /usr/local or /opt and worry about the dependancies yourself. Good luck. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Upgrading gcc and glibc (agian) OT
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 08:23:43 -0600, Collins Richey wrote: Yes, you are likely to encounter all of the above, and no, there is no quick fix. I do have a permanent solution to offer: install gentoo. I have nothing against LFS - a perfectly fine distro, and a good learning experience, but using LFS means that you must become your own dependancy wizard (time and again). I'm basically lazy. Although it is a matter of reading interest to know that package A depends upon B that depends upon libs D E F which may in turn break package G etc., I don't want to deal with that myself. For that work, I've hired a world wide team of subject matter experts at a very reasonable price (namely zippo): the gentoo development team. Thanks Collins. Until a year ago the only distro I had run in earnest was SuSE - having used most of v.6 and v.7. I had reached the point where I was running vanilla kernels and almost all my applications were self-compiled - so the rpm stuff was mostly just getting in the way, and the complexity of the distro (lots of indirection), was a bar to me learning more. I decided it was Gentoo or LFS and I actually installed Gentoo first. I could see all the advantages, yet the very convenience of e-builds again left me feeling that I was not fully in control and would not learn as much as I wanted. Also, at that time, there seemed to a couple of issues with Gentoo - the one that springs to mind was CUPS, which I could not get going and one of the CUPS gurus was saying loud and long that the e-build was defective. I therefore took myself off to LSF and I have *really* enjoyed it - but I admit that it now leaves me with this big problem of updating the gcc / glibc core. It is not that I mind rebuilding LFS / BLFS itself, but the hours of post-installation fine-tuning will be a pain - I should have kept better notes as I went along. I have been toying with the idea of Gentoo again recently and I will certainly consider is seriously before I do a fresh LFS installation. Regards, Geoff ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Upgrading gcc and glibc (agian)
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 07:07:01 -0700, Net Llama! wrote: snip Kurt is definitely much more of an expert on this than I. I also remember reading about this, but haven't yet run into it. This is just one of those forward looking issues that i've yet to experience. There are no backward looking issues though. snip Its impossible to tell you everything that needs to be recompiled, since there are essentially an infinite number of possibilities. All i can mention are the things i've run into, which are rpm, zlib, bzip2 binutils. Thus far, everything else has worked. If you can get gcc glibc upgraded and still be able to go about your day to day activities, then you should be out of the woods. As Kurt mentioned, at this time there aren't really many advantages to having the latest greatest, other than having the latest greatest. So if you aren't comfortable, then don't do it. OK, thanks for all that NL. It seems so un-linux/*nix-like that even basic system components cannot be updated in place with predictable consequences .. but if that is the way things are I will have to live with it. Regards, Geoff ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Upgrading gcc and glibc (agian) OT
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 16:21:22 +0100 Geoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I decided it was Gentoo or LFS and I actually installed Gentoo first. I could see all the advantages, yet the very convenience of e-builds again left me feeling that I was not fully in control and would not learn as much as I wanted. Also, at that time, there seemed to a couple of issues with Gentoo - the one that springs to mind was CUPS, which I could not get going and one of the CUPS gurus was saying loud and long that the e-build was defective. There was a time about 6-8 months ago when CUPS first began screwing around with Ghostscript (providing their own modifications) that I could not get CUPS to work at all even on my plain-vanilla Laserjet. This is not a gentoo problem. I reverted to the older LPR mechanisms for a couple of months, then emerged CUPS and friends again, and now it works. There are currently new versions of CUPS et al ebuilds, but I wouldn't touch these with a fork until they've aged somewhat. Once burned; twice shy. Sometimes even the competent folks at gentoo can't cope with whatever the CUPS folks have screwed up. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Upgrading gcc and glibc (agian) OT
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 16:21:22 +0100 Geoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not that I mind rebuilding LFS / BLFS itself, but the hours of post-installation fine-tuning will be a pain - I should have kept better notes as I went along. That's one of the strong points of gentoo. I started out keeping a log, but that went by the wayside. The many hours of post-installation fine tuning won't need to be repeated, since I will not likely be reinstalling again. I always keep a cloned copy of the system just in case anything really breaks. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Upgrading gcc and glibc (agian)
Hello, In spite of 5 years in linux, I am new to sxs and to this ng. I found you because I was Googling for information on upgrading gcc and glibc, and I found the excellent guidance at http://www.opq.se/sxs/index2.html. I have also just found a couple of posts on the topic here. I run LFS 3.3, which I installed last year (gcc 2.95.3 / glibc 2.2.5). My system is very nicely sorted and up-to-date, except for the fact that gcc and glibc have obviously moved on. Whenever I have looked into this topic in the past I have become lost and depressed in a mass of postings in other places warning about binary incompatibilities, the need to recompile most or all of my libraries, the danger of hosing my system entirely .. etc. In short, and without meaning any disrespect - the sxs guidance looks too good to be true. Is it really as easy as that? Won't I have to recompile most everything after the upgrade? Any other gotchas? I my system well backed up - so I am not worried about losing it - but I don't want to get started only to screw up because the sxs guidance is assuming something(s) I don't know. Any observations? Thanks, Geoff ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Upgrading gcc and glibc (agian)
On 08/01/03 13:51, Geoff wrote: Whenever I have looked into this topic in the past I have become lost and depressed in a mass of postings in other places warning about binary incompatibilities, the need to recompile most or all of my libraries, the danger of hosing my system entirely .. etc. In short, and without meaning any disrespect - the sxs guidance looks too good to be true. Is it really as easy as that? Won't I have to recompile most everything after the upgrade? Any other gotchas? I assume that you're referring to the two entries that i wrote. As far as gcc is concerned, yes its that easy. Its damn hard to wreck your box by not building gcc right. As for glibc, its relatively safe, but there's always a possibility of disaster. Ironically, just today, i completely wrecked a box that was running Redhat-6.2, where i tried to upgrade straight to glibc-2.2.5 (it was runnning 2.1.2). But, most of that problem was just the enormity of the upgrade, as nothing else had been upgraded yet. I've successfully upgraded several other boxes' glibc without a hitch. While there are always going to be some exceptions, most things will _not_ need to be recompiled after upgrading glibc. Of course it also heavily depends on what version of glibc you have, and which you're upgrading to. rpm will have to be recompiled, as it depends heavily on glibc's locale libraries. zlib (and anything that depends on it) might also have to be recompiled. But none of that is a showstopper, and won't incapacitate your box if you can't get to it right away. I my system well backed up - so I am not worried about losing it - but I don't want to get started only to screw up because the sxs guidance is assuming something(s) I don't know. Well, i don't know what you don't know :) If you've got questions, or special circumstances, please ask. We're all hear to help. -- ~ L. Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo:http://netllama.ipfox.com 3:35pm up 17 days, 18:18, 1 user, load average: 0.25, 0.14, 0.06 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Upgrading gcc and glibc (agian)
Quoth Geoff: [...] I run LFS 3.3, which I installed last year (gcc 2.95.3 / glibc 2.2.5). My system is very nicely sorted and up-to-date, except for the fact that gcc and glibc have obviously moved on. Yup. Whenever I have looked into this topic in the past I have become lost and depressed in a mass of postings in other places warning about binary incompatibilities, the need to recompile most or all of my libraries, the danger of hosing my system entirely .. etc. In short, and without meaning any disrespect - the sxs guidance looks too good to be true. Is it really as easy as that? Won't I have to recompile most everything after the upgrade? Any other gotchas? As the Llama wrote, you'd be hard-pressed to toast a running system just by upgrading GCC - the default installation procedure installs the new one into /usr/local, which keeps it from becoming the system compiler and keeps the potential for self-inflicted damages to a minimum. So, yes, installing GCC really is that easy; no, you won't have to recompile your libraries or applications. This is one area in which the received or conventional wisdom is incorrect. However, it wasn't always that way, and it is the memories of The Way It Used To Be (tm) that formed conventional wisdom. The risk of hosing yourself by upgrading glibc is real, however. Having a good backup is important, but you have to have a way to boot your system if the upgrade goes badly. Again, as the Llama wrote, you can trash a system with a bad upgrade procedure very easily. Moreover, backwards compatibility post-upgrade can be a potential issue because the C library is fundamental system component. Unless you need something in the newer library that can't be shoehorned into the system without upgrading the entire library, I don't recommend doing so. An upgrade of this sort is not for the faint of heart. I my system well backed up - so I am not worried about losing it - but I don't want to get started only to screw up because the sxs guidance is assuming something(s) I don't know. I might be overly cautious - I've broken systems many times upgrading the C library - but I would test the upgrade procedure you intend to use on a system you don't mind rebuilding if it goes badly before risking a more important box. Kurt -- Pecor's Health-Food Principle: Never eat rutabaga on any day of the week that has a y in it. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc - what is the stable release?
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Collins Richey wrote: On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:57:03 -0500 Klaus-Peter Schrage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Net Llama! wrote: Now, Red Hat 8.0 already has 2.3.2 (-4.80) via up2date, which is a bignuisance to the wine people (and me as a wine addict): wine simply won'trun under glib 2.3.x, and it seems to be quite a hassle to make it rununder the new glibc. do you know why it won't run? i use wine occasionally, so this might be an issue. See http://www.winehq.org/news/?view=155 Too bad this is a private server: Forbidden You don't have permission .. it was working fine yesterday. i read the article, and it was mostly Marcus Meissner debating how to fix wine horkage as a result of glibc-2.3.x. a favorite function, or function abc() is now deprecated, and everyone needs to use abc_d(), etc. It matters not whether it's glibc, XFree, KDE, or GNOME - they always reinvent the wheel and change the rules. they're not reinventing the wheel at all. that's a M$ tactic. they're making the wheel better, which unfortunately tends to leave older technologies behind in some cases. I've been spoiled working in the IBM mainframe software arena for most of my adult life. When you upgrade from one IBM OS release to another, most of the time you don't even need to recompile/reassemble unless you want to exploit some new functionality. sure, when a single company controls the entire development environment, everythihng is wonderful. i hear M$ is great with that. :P /a little rant ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc - what is the stable release?
Net Llama! wrote: On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Collins Richey wrote: See http://www.winehq.org/news/?view=155 Too bad this is a private server: Forbidden You don't have permission .. it was working fine yesterday. i read the article, and it was mostly Marcus Meissner debating how to fix wine horkage as a result of glibc-2.3.x. Believe it or not: winehq.org totally reorganized their site just yesterday, so the given link got lost. Klaus ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc - what is the stable release?
Tim Wunder wrote: FWIW, Red Hat Linux 9 will have 2.3.1 Now, Red Hat 8.0 already has 2.3.2 (-4.80) via up2date, which is a big nuisance to the wine people (and me as a wine addict): wine simply won't run under glib 2.3.x, and it seems to be quite a hassle to make it run under the new glibc. Klaus ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc - what is the stable release?
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Klaus-Peter Schrage wrote: Tim Wunder wrote: FWIW, Red Hat Linux 9 will have 2.3.1 Now, Red Hat 8.0 already has 2.3.2 (-4.80) via up2date, which is a big nuisance to the wine people (and me as a wine addict): wine simply won't run under glib 2.3.x, and it seems to be quite a hassle to make it run under the new glibc. do you know why it won't run? i use wine occasionally, so this might be an issue. -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc - what is the stable release?
Net Llama! wrote: Now, Red Hat 8.0 already has 2.3.2 (-4.80) via up2date, which is a big nuisance to the wine people (and me as a wine addict): wine simply won't run under glib 2.3.x, and it seems to be quite a hassle to make it run under the new glibc. do you know why it won't run? i use wine occasionally, so this might be an issue. See http://www.winehq.org/news/?view=155 There have been more discussions in several threads on the wine-devel list. Klaus ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc - what is the stable release?
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:57:03 -0500 Klaus-Peter Schrage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Net Llama! wrote: Now, Red Hat 8.0 already has 2.3.2 (-4.80) via up2date, which is a bignuisance to the wine people (and me as a wine addict): wine simply won'trun under glib 2.3.x, and it seems to be quite a hassle to make it rununder the new glibc. do you know why it won't run? i use wine occasionally, so this might be an issue. See http://www.winehq.org/news/?view=155 Too bad this is a private server: Forbidden You don't have permission .. There have been more discussions in several threads on the wine-devel list. Klaus a little rant This is one of the reasons that progress is so slow in the free software environment. Every other time they upgrade pick a major gnu or linux software function, it renders everything (or large portions) obsolete and unusable for a while. Changing the calling sequence or returns from a favorite function, or function abc() is now deprecated, and everyone needs to use abc_d(), etc. It matters not whether it's glibc, XFree, KDE, or GNOME - they always reinvent the wheel and change the rules. I've been spoiled working in the IBM mainframe software arena for most of my adult life. When you upgrade from one IBM OS release to another, most of the time you don't even need to recompile/reassemble unless you want to exploit some new functionality. /a little rant ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc - what is the stable release?
Collins Richey wrote: On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:57:03 -0500 Klaus-Peter Schrage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Net Llama! wrote: Now, Red Hat 8.0 already has 2.3.2 (-4.80) via up2date, which is a bignuisance to the wine people (and me as a wine addict): wine simply won'trun under glib 2.3.x, and it seems to be quite a hassle to make it rununder the new glibc. do you know why it won't run? i use wine occasionally, so this might be an issue. See http://www.winehq.org/news/?view=155 Too bad this is a private server: Forbidden You don't have permission ... Oh, sorry - this one should work (at least, here and now): http://www.winehq.org/index.php?issue=155 It's the 155th issue of the weekly newsletter on winehq.org, containing Threading Problems with glibc 2.3. Klaus ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
glibc - what is the stable release?
I'm trying to figure out what the latest stable release of glibc is. I see a 2.2.5 and i see a 2.3.1. According to the (g)libc website: http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/ 2.3.1 is the latest release, but they neglect to comment on whether its considered to be a devel or stable release. anyone know for sure? i've been running 2.2.5 on several of my boxes, but i'm at the point where i'm considering upgrading a few more and would prefer to jump right to 2.3.1, if its considered to be stable. thanks. -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc - what is the stable release?
On 3/24/2003 4:48 PM, someone claiming to be Net Llama! wrote: I'm trying to figure out what the latest stable release of glibc is. I see a 2.2.5 and i see a 2.3.1. According to the (g)libc website: http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/ 2.3.1 is the latest release, but they neglect to comment on whether its considered to be a devel or stable release. anyone know for sure? i've been running 2.2.5 on several of my boxes, but i'm at the point where i'm considering upgrading a few more and would prefer to jump right to 2.3.1, if its considered to be stable. thanks. AFAIK, they don't follow the same stable/unstable convention that the kernel follows, so 2.3.1 is s'posed to be the latest stable release. FWIW, Red Hat Linux 9 will have 2.3.1 Tim ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc - what is the stable release?
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:20:29PM -0500, Net Llama! wrote: ... AFAIK, they don't follow the same stable/unstable convention that the kernel follows, so 2.3.1 is s'posed to be the latest stable release. ahhh...ok, thanks. so, has anyone upgraded a box from a 2.2.x version to a 2.3.x version and lived to tell the tale? is the procedure for building 2.3.x the same as the one for 2.2.x? IHMO, changing glibc is just asking for trouble since almost everything on the system depends on it. Only slightly less dangerous is updating the Berkeley database libraries. FWIW, Red Hat Linux 9 will have 2.3.1 yea, i've heard the same, but i don't assume that Redhat is including what is deemed stable by the rest of the world ;) Ain't that the truth. Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX:(206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer (1891) ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc - what is the stable release?
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Bill Campbell wrote: On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:20:29PM -0500, Net Llama! wrote: ... AFAIK, they don't follow the same stable/unstable convention that the kernel follows, so 2.3.1 is s'posed to be the latest stable release. ahhh...ok, thanks. so, has anyone upgraded a box from a 2.2.x version to a 2.3.x version and lived to tell the tale? is the procedure for building 2.3.x the same as the one for 2.2.x? IHMO, changing glibc is just asking for trouble since almost everything on the system depends on it. Only slightly less dangerous is updating the Berkeley database libraries. not neccesarily. i've built upgraded newer 2.2.x versions of glibc before, and survived without a scratch. i've also heard nighmare stories of people trashing their systems by performing the upgrade incorrectly. -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc - what is the stable release?
begin Net Llama!'s quote: | ahhh...ok, thanks. so, has anyone upgraded a box from a 2.2.x | version to a 2.3.x version and lived to tell the tale? is the | procedure for building 2.3.x the same as the one for 2.2.x? didn't suse 8.1 go to 2.3.0 or 2.3.1? whatever they went to, it broke every binary in sight. -- dep http://www.linuxandmain.com -- outside the box, barely within the envelope, and no animated paperclip anywhere. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc - what is the stable release?
I second THAT !!! Downgraded to SuSe 8.0 after the system went totally down the toilet on SuSe 8.1 Same for Redhack 8.0 .. dep wrote: begin Net Llama!'s quote: | ahhh...ok, thanks. so, has anyone upgraded a box from a 2.2.x | version to a 2.3.x version and lived to tell the tale? is the | procedure for building 2.3.x the same as the one for 2.2.x? didn't suse 8.1 go to 2.3.0 or 2.3.1? whatever they went to, it broke every binary in sight. -- Ben Duncan Phone (601)-355-2574 Fax (601)-355-2573 Cell (601)-946-1220 Business Network Solutions 336 Elton Road Jackson MS, 39212 Software is like Sex, it is better when it's free - Linus Torvalds ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
[drepper@redhat.com: glibc 2.3.2]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - - Forwarded message from Ulrich Drepper [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:04:12 -0800 From: Ulrich Drepper [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Red Hat, Inc. To: GNU libc devel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: glibc 2.3.2 After several months of development glibc 2.3.2 is available. It can be downloaded at ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/glibc/releases and very soon at ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/glibc and all the mirrors. Please always use your local mirrors. The new files are glibc-2.3.2.tar.bz2 glibc-linuxthreads-2.3.2.tar.bz2 glibc-2.3.1-2.3.2.diff.bz2 This release is not just a bug fix release, it contains considerable amount of new functionality. The most important new features are: Version 2.3.2 * Thread-safe interfaces for many functions that access locale data were added in version 2.3, but these features were omitted from NEWS. Many functions have variants with an `_l' suffix that take a `locale_t' object as a parameter rather than consulting the current locale. The new functions `newlocale', `duplocale', and `freelocale' in locale.h create and maintain `locale_t' objects. Additionally, the new function `uselocale' sets the current locale (as used by functions not so parameterized) set for an individual thread. These features were added in version 2.3, implemented by Ulrich Drepper and Roland McGrath. * The functions getresuid, getresgid, setresuid, and setresgid, which have long been available on Linux, are now declared in unistd.h and are now also available on the Hurd. * ELF thread-local storage support (TLS) now works on x86-64. * The new dynamic string token $LIB is expanded in shared library names. This normally expands to lib, but on some 64-bit platforms to lib64 instead. * Aldy Hernandez contributed complete software floating point support for PowerPC machines with no FPU. * fexecve is implemented on Linux. * The `btowc' function should work at least twice as fast due to specialized callbacks in the iconv modules. Implemented by Bruno Haible. * With approriate thread add-ons cancelable functions are now implemented in libc.so as well. No need to call the function in libpthread. This change allowed to finally disable the incorrect and expensive handling of weak definition in ld.so. * Yet more PLT entries in libc.so have been removed. We finally arrived at the bare minimum. Startup times improved appropriately. * Support for the new Linux/x86 system call interface was added. The AT_SYSINFO auxiliary vector entry is recognized and handled. Beside these changes there are many other internal changes, changes to the build system, documentation. The sources were also prepared to be used with the NPTL thread library which is not yet included. The support for the various platforms hasn't changed much. New platforms have better support now and what has worked in 2.3.1 should work now. Updating to this release is always advised. But one thing hasn't changed: it is not easy to build and install glibc. In fact, it is very hard and a mistake might ruin the entire system. Therefore it is highly advised to use the binaries by your vendor. We are not responsible for you blowing up your system. And most problems with the installation have been proven to be not reproducible so it is unlikely that any help is available. And on the topic of help: bugs must be reported to the vendor. The glibc developers are not a replacement for the frontline support of the various vendors. And reports of problems for anything but the latest sources are most likely ignored as well. Before reporting a problem consult the mailing list archive for libc-alpha and eventually the libc-hacker mailing list, available at http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html. Also consult the documentation coming with the glibc sources. They might prove useful. Real bug reports for the latest official sources should be send using the glibcbug script or by using the GNATS web page at http://bugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl - -- - --.,-.444 Castro Street Ulrich Drepper \,-' \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `--- - - End forwarded message - - -- Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+Y1ZC2MO5UukaubkRAtk2AKCezWEDv/rr2lCnY9hLdRg8nlgZOgCeMEFr cdZ/rkkoId1GGbpWqauMyYY= =n5dY -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Telling version of glibc
What is the command to figure out which version of glibc your box thinks it is running on? Thanks, Joel ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Telling version of glibc
ldconfig -v On 02/25/03 17:54, Joel Hammer wrote: What is the command to figure out which version of glibc your box thinks it is running on? -- ~ L. Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo:http://netllama.ipfox.com 6:15pm up 43 days, 1:40, 2 users, load average: 0.35, 0.30, 0.25 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Telling version of glibc
Thanks, Joel On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 06:17:17PM -0800, Net Llama! wrote: ldconfig -v On 02/25/03 17:54, Joel Hammer wrote: What is the command to figure out which version of glibc your box thinks it is running on? -- ~ L. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Telling version of glibc
Feigning erudition, Joel Hammer wrote: % What is the command to figure out which version of glibc your box thinks it % is running on? $ /lib/libc.so.6 GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.5, by Roland McGrath et al. Copyright (C) 1992-2001, 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Compiled by GNU CC version 2.95.3 20010315 (release). Compiled on a Linux 2.4.18 system on 2002-05-17. Available extensions: GNU libio by Per Bothner crypt add-on version 2.1 by Michael Glad and others linuxthreads-0.9 by Xavier Leroy BIND-8.2.3-T5B libthread_db work sponsored by Alpha Processor Inc NIS(YP)/NIS+ NSS modules 0.19 by Thorsten Kukuk Report bugs using the `glibcbug' script to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Kurt -- If you live in a country run by committee, be on the committee. -- Graham Summer ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: upgarding to glibc-2.2.5
That someone was me, and that was an anomaly of some sort. I've never had problems outside of that one box. On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, m.w.chang wrote: in the last few days, I have seen someone mentioning a problem with symlink to libcs.so.5 or something. does it mean an extra step to clear all symlinks before buidling glibc? my last trial (on a fresh-install COL 3.1) was a failure.I could't compile a thing after the upgrade procedure. Net Llama! wrote: Backup /lib before you start. If it all goes to hell, make sure you have something like Knoppix or the Linuxcare BBC ready so you can restore /lib. or that plan will work too. Just /lib needs to be restored. -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: upgarding to glibc-2.2.5
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, m.w.chang wrote: in the last few days, I have seen someone mentioning a problem with symlink to libcs.so.5 or something. does it mean an extra step to clear all symlinks before buidling glibc? my last trial (on a fresh-install COL 3.1) was a failure.I could't compile a thing after the upgrade procedure. Upgrading to 2.2.5 was the easiest thing I ever did. Did you keep a compile log so you could check and make sure it compiled properly? -- ** Registered Linux User Number 185956 http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=ensafe=offgroup=linux Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net 6:06pm up 18 days, 19:48, 2 users, load average: 0.05, 0.06, 0.07 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: upgarding to glibc-2.2.5
ok. will try again this x'mas eve... ho..ho..ho... Net Llama! wrote: That someone was me, and that was an anomaly of some sort. I've never had problems outside of that one box. in the last few days, I have seen someone mentioning a problem with symlink to libcs.so.5 or something. does it mean an extra step to clear all symlinks before buidling glibc? -- Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux We Trust. news://news.hkpcug.org/ v \ http://www.linux-sxs.org news://news.linux.org.hk /( _ )\ http://www.linuxfromscratch.org ^ ^ http://beyond.linuxfromscratch.org For starters: http://new.linuxnow.com/tutorial/preface.html ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: upgarding to glibc-2.2.5
I did, and there was nothing wrong with the compilation process. just that during make install, the libpthread had error. It was COL 3.1, fresh-install (purely for testing the upgrade procedure). I would need to try again this weekend to post the insatll error (hopefully, before everyone forgot and lost interest :) Upgrading to 2.2.5 was the easiest thing I ever did. Did you keep a compile log so you could check and make sure it compiled properly? -- Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux We Trust. news://news.hkpcug.org/ v \ http://www.linux-sxs.org news://news.linux.org.hk /( _ )\ http://www.linuxfromscratch.org ^ ^ http://beyond.linuxfromscratch.org For starters: http://new.linuxnow.com/tutorial/preface.html ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: upgarding to glibc-2.2.5
in the last few days, I have seen someone mentioning a problem with symlink to libcs.so.5 or something. does it mean an extra step to clear all symlinks before buidling glibc? my last trial (on a fresh-install COL 3.1) was a failure.I could't compile a thing after the upgrade procedure. Net Llama! wrote: Backup /lib before you start. If it all goes to hell, make sure you have something like Knoppix or the Linuxcare BBC ready so you can restore /lib. or that plan will work too. Just /lib needs to be restored. -- Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux We Trust. news://news.hkpcug.org/ v \ http://www.linux-sxs.org news://news.linux.org.hk /( _ )\ http://www.linuxfromscratch.org ^ ^ http://beyond.linuxfromscratch.org For starters: http://new.linuxnow.com/tutorial/preface.html ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
glibc madness WAS: [ Re: everything is dumping core! ]
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Net Llama! wrote: On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Jim Bonnet wrote: Or.. Have you run a debugger against the programs to see if you can find the actual line of code that is causing the fault? Maybe its a lib call and you can pinpoint the lib that way. I don't even have gdb installed on this box..ugh. If i do install it, what syntax would i use? Something like gdb binary? exactly, although you should compile with -g so you get some symbols to debug against, and install ddd so you can get something done right away, VS learning C debugging from the command line.. ouch. I guess the rest of your machine is running just fine? because as was previously noted.. RAM is a factor in segfault.. I ran memtest86 on this box for 5 days straight, and didn't have a single error. The problem, however, appears to be worsening, as now mozilla core dumps too, and it ran ok last week. I finally installed gdb and ddd, and ran it against mozilla. The only output that i got was: Core was generated by `/opt/mozilla/mozilla-bin'. Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault. Reading symbols from /opt/mozilla/libgkgfx.so...(no debugging symbols found)... done. Loaded symbols for /opt/mozilla/libgkgfx.so Reading symbols from /opt/mozilla/libjsj.so...(no debugging symbols found)... done. Loaded symbols for /opt/mozilla/libjsj.so Reading symbols from /opt/mozilla/libmozjs.so...(no debugging symbols found)... done. Loaded symbols for /opt/mozilla/libmozjs.so Reading symbols from /opt/mozilla/libxpcom.so...(no debugging symbols found)... done. Loaded symbols for /opt/mozilla/libxpcom.so Reading symbols from /opt/mozilla/libplds4.so...(no debugging symbols found)... done. Loaded symbols for /opt/mozilla/libplds4.so Reading symbols from /opt/mozilla/libplc4.so...(no debugging symbols found)... done. Loaded symbols for /opt/mozilla/libplc4.so Reading symbols from /opt/mozilla/libnspr4.so...(no debugging symbols found)... done. Loaded symbols for /opt/mozilla/libnspr4.so Reading symbols from /lib/libpthread.so.0...(no debugging symbols found)... done. warning: Unable to set global thread event mask: generic error [New Thread 1024 (LWP 20934)] Error while reading shared library symbols: Cannot enable thread event reporting for Thread 1024 (LWP 20934): generic error Reading symbols from /lib/libdl.so.2...(no debugging symbols found)...done. Loaded symbols for /lib/libdl.so.2 Reading symbols from /usr/lib/libgtk-1.2.so.0...(no debugging symbols found)... done. Loaded symbols for /usr/lib/libgtk-1.2.so.0 Reading symbols from /usr/lib/libgdk-1.2.so.0...(no debugging symbols found)... done. Loaded symbols for /usr/lib/libgdk-1.2.so.0 Reading symbols from /usr/lib/libgmodule-1.2.so.0... (no debugging symbols found)...done. Loaded symbols for /usr/lib/libgmodule-1.2.so.0 Reading symbols from /usr/lib/libglib-1.2.so.0...done. Loaded symbols for /usr/lib/libglib-1.2.so.0 Reading symbols from /usr/X11R6/lib/libXi.so.6...done. Loaded symbols for /usr/X11R6/lib/libXi.so.6 Reading symbols from /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6...done. Loaded symbols for /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6 Reading symbols from /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6...done. Loaded symbols for /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 Reading symbols from /lib/libm.so.6...done. Loaded symbols for /lib/libm.so.6 Reading symbols from /lib/libc.so.6...done. Loaded symbols for /lib/libc.so.6 Reading symbols from /usr/lib/libstdc++-libc6.1-1.so.2...done. Loaded symbols for /usr/lib/libstdc++-libc6.1-1.so.2 Reading symbols from /lib/ld-linux.so.2...done. Loaded symbols for /lib/ld-linux.so.2 #0 0x4020a6a3 in __errno_location () from /lib/libpthread.so.0 (gdb) Does this mean that the problem is with /lib/libpthread.so.0 ? I think i've figured out (part of) thje problem. Somehow, and i've yet to figure out how, when i was attempting to build glibc-2.2.5 last week, parts of it got installed. I have no idea how, since the build bombed out (ironically with a core dump) and i never even got as far as the 'make install' phase. -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc madness WAS: [ Re: everything is dumping core! ]
On 11/25/2002 11:42 AM, someone claiming to be Net Llama! wrote: On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Net Llama! wrote: snip Does this mean that the problem is with /lib/libpthread.so.0 ? I think i've figured out (part of) thje problem. Somehow, and i've yet to figure out how, when i was attempting to build glibc-2.2.5 last week, parts of it got installed. I have no idea how, since the build bombed out (ironically with a core dump) and i never even got as far as the 'make install' phase. I was wondering whether this was the same box that you tried updating glibc on. I thought you got that installed all the way, though. My recomendation? Punt. Assuming your data is backed up. Reinstall the O/S. Fixing a horked glibc is, um, problematic. Tim ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc madness WAS: [ Re: everything is dumping core! ]
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Tim Wunder wrote: On 11/25/2002 11:42 AM, someone claiming to be Net Llama! wrote: On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Net Llama! wrote: snip Does this mean that the problem is with /lib/libpthread.so.0 ? I think i've figured out (part of) thje problem. Somehow, and i've yet to figure out how, when i was attempting to build glibc-2.2.5 last week, parts of it got installed. I have no idea how, since the build bombed out (ironically with a core dump) and i never even got as far as the 'make install' phase. I was wondering whether this was the same box that you tried updating glibc on. I thought you got that installed all the way, though. Actually i've upgraded to glibc-2.2.5 on 3 of my boxes in teh past 2 weeks. This is the only one that blewup. My recomendation? Punt. Assuming your data is backed up. Reinstall the O/S. Fixing a horked glibc is, um, problematic. Nope, it was as simple as putting my backup of /lib back in place. I don't do OS reinstalls :) -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
FIXED Re: glibc madness WAS: [ Re: everything is dumping core! ]
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Kurt Wall wrote: On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:42:35AM -0500, Net Llama! wrote: Does this mean that the problem is with /lib/libpthread.so.0 ? Possibly. Nope, turned out to be the symlink: /lib/libc.so.6 - /lib/libc-2.2.5.so I still can't figure out how that got set before i did a make install. I think i've figured out (part of) thje problem. Somehow, and i've yet to figure out how, when i was attempting to build glibc-2.2.5 last week, parts of it got installed. I have no idea how, since the build bombed out (ironically with a core dump) and i never even got as far as the 'make install' phase. I know that GLIBC has a fix-includes script that modifies header files so they'll work properly after the new library is installed, so perhaps that's the cause? Well, no, that isn't it; modifying header files shouldn't affect applications that are already compiled. I think you've got library version mismatches, which will most definitely cause seg faults. I'd reinstall the original library binaries if that's possible. Thankfully i backed up /lib before doing the initial build of glibc-2.2.5, so i just restored that and there are no more core dumps. -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc madness WAS: [ Re: everything is dumping core! ]
On 11/25/2002 2:05 PM, someone claiming to be Net Llama! wrote: On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Tim Wunder wrote: snip Actually i've upgraded to glibc-2.2.5 on 3 of my boxes in teh past 2 weeks. This is the only one that blewup. My recomendation? Punt. Assuming your data is backed up. Reinstall the O/S. Fixing a horked glibc is, um, problematic. Nope, it was as simple as putting my backup of /lib back in place. I don't do OS reinstalls :) Well, that was my *other* recommendation ;) ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: build of glibc-2.2.5 bombs out
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:27:49 -0800
begin Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed forth:
On 11/15/2002 06:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:16:24AM -0500, Net Llama! wrote:
I'm trying to build glibc-2.2.5 from the pristine source, and its
bombingabout 10 minutes in with the error:
exec: illegal option: -C
If something is invoking exec, perhaps it means exec -c. That said,
make accepts a -C option which might be buggering something up.
Well, i found this patch for scripts/cpp:
--- scripts/cpp.~1.2.~ Thu Dec 6 10:20:25 2001
+++ scripts/cpp Fri Jan 11 10:34:56 2002
@@ -15,8 +15,12 @@
fi
fi
fi
+if test -z $cpp; then
+ echo cpp not found 2
+ exit 1
+fi
-exec $cpp $*
+exec $cpp ${1+$@}
Local Variables:
mode: sh
End:
And things got a bit further on the next attempt, until it bombed here:
/usr/src/glibc-build/elf/ld-linux.so.2 --library-path
/usr/src/glibc-build:/usr/src/glibc-build/math:/usr/src/glibc-build/elf
:/usr/src/glibc-build/dlfcn:/usr/src/glibc-build/nss:/usr/src/glibc-bui
ld/nis:/usr/src/glibc-build/rt:/usr/src/glibc-build/resolv:/usr/src/gli
bc-build/crypt:/usr/src/glibc-build/linuxthreads
/usr/src/glibc-build/sunrpc/rpcgen -Y ../scripts -c
rpcsvc/bootparam_prot.x -o /usr/src/glibc-build/sunrpc/xbootparam_prot.T
cpp not found/usr/src/glibc-build/sunrpc/rpcgen: C preprocessor failed
with exit code 1 make[2]: ***
[/usr/src/glibc-build/sunrpc/xbootparam_prot.stmp] Error 1 make[2]:
Leaving directory `/usr/src/glibc-2.2.5/sunrpc' make[1]: ***
[sunrpc/others] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory
`/usr/src/glibc-2.2.5' make: *** [all] Error 2
You're trying to build glibc without cpp installed? Well that won't work.
Ciao,
David A. Bandel
- --
Focus on the dream, not the competition.
-- Nemesis Racing Team motto
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE91jFV3uVcotqGMQcRAmcaAKDnSBHo0pkL1zSMH0yKFMNIWgfILACfVDdC
uoVtgYQCnzkdMvFGF5KB/Sk=
=ZdRm
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: build of glibc-2.2.5 bombs out
On 11/16/2002 03:51 AM, David A. Bandel wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:27:49 -0800
begin Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed forth:
On 11/15/2002 06:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:16:24AM -0500, Net Llama! wrote:
I'm trying to build glibc-2.2.5 from the pristine source, and its
bombingabout 10 minutes in with the error:
exec: illegal option: -C
If something is invoking exec, perhaps it means exec -c. That said,
make accepts a -C option which might be buggering something up.
Well, i found this patch for scripts/cpp:
--- scripts/cpp.~1.2.~ Thu Dec 6 10:20:25 2001
+++ scripts/cpp Fri Jan 11 10:34:56 2002
@@ -15,8 +15,12 @@
fi
fi
fi
+if test -z $cpp; then
+ echo cpp not found 2
+ exit 1
+fi
-exec $cpp $*
+exec $cpp ${1+$@}
Local Variables:
mode: sh
End:
And things got a bit further on the next attempt, until it bombed here:
/usr/src/glibc-build/elf/ld-linux.so.2 --library-path
/usr/src/glibc-build:/usr/src/glibc-build/math:/usr/src/glibc-build/elf
:/usr/src/glibc-build/dlfcn:/usr/src/glibc-build/nss:/usr/src/glibc-bui
ld/nis:/usr/src/glibc-build/rt:/usr/src/glibc-build/resolv:/usr/src/gli
bc-build/crypt:/usr/src/glibc-build/linuxthreads
/usr/src/glibc-build/sunrpc/rpcgen -Y ../scripts -c
rpcsvc/bootparam_prot.x -o /usr/src/glibc-build/sunrpc/xbootparam_prot.T
cpp not found/usr/src/glibc-build/sunrpc/rpcgen: C preprocessor failed
with exit code 1 make[2]: ***
[/usr/src/glibc-build/sunrpc/xbootparam_prot.stmp] Error 1 make[2]:
Leaving directory `/usr/src/glibc-2.2.5/sunrpc' make[1]: ***
[sunrpc/others] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory
`/usr/src/glibc-2.2.5' make: *** [all] Error 2
You're trying to build glibc without cpp installed? Well that won't work.
Actually, cpp was installed, but oddly, wasn't in root's $PATH. Once i
fixed that, the build completed successfully, and glibc installed
without incident.
--
~
L. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com
8:25am up 34 days, 21:40, 3 users, load average: 0.02, 0.34, 0.57
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
build of glibc-2.2.5 bombs out
I'm trying to build glibc-2.2.5 from the pristine source, and its bombing about 10 minutes in with the error: exec: illegal option: -C Anyone have any ideas, or seen this before? -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: build of glibc-2.2.5 bombs out
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:16:24 -0500 (EST) Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to build glibc-2.2.5 from the pristine source, and its bombing about 10 minutes in with the error: exec: illegal option: -C Lonni, sorry, I haven't come across this one yet and I've compiled 2.2.5 a lot... I've been using gcc 2.95.3 and modutils 2.4.12. -- ** Registered Linux User Number 185956 http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=ensafe=offgroup=linux Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net 5:47pm up 10 days, 22:14, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: build of glibc-2.2.5 bombs out
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Jerry McBride wrote: On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:16:24 -0500 (EST) Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to build glibc-2.2.5 from the pristine source, and its bombing about 10 minutes in with the error: exec: illegal option: -C Lonni, sorry, I haven't come across this one yet and I've compiled 2.2.5 a lot... I've been using gcc 2.95.3 and modutils 2.4.12. the version of modutils matters? since exec is part of bash, which version of bash did you have? -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: build of glibc-2.2.5 bombs out
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:16:24AM -0500, Net Llama! wrote: I'm trying to build glibc-2.2.5 from the pristine source, and its bombing about 10 minutes in with the error: exec: illegal option: -C If something is invoking exec, perhaps it means exec -c. That said, make accepts a -C option which might be buggering something up. Kurt -- Anybody who doesn't cut his speed at the sight of a police car is probably parked. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: build of glibc-2.2.5 bombs out
On 11/15/2002 06:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:16:24AM -0500, Net Llama! wrote:
I'm trying to build glibc-2.2.5 from the pristine source, and its bombing
about 10 minutes in with the error:
exec: illegal option: -C
If something is invoking exec, perhaps it means exec -c. That said,
make accepts a -C option which might be buggering something up.
Well, i found this patch for scripts/cpp:
--- scripts/cpp.~1.2.~ Thu Dec 6 10:20:25 2001
+++ scripts/cpp Fri Jan 11 10:34:56 2002
@@ -15,8 +15,12 @@
fi
fi
fi
+if test -z $cpp; then
+ echo cpp not found 2
+ exit 1
+fi
-exec $cpp $*
+exec $cpp ${1+$@}
Local Variables:
mode: sh
End:
And things got a bit further on the next attempt, until it bombed here:
/usr/src/glibc-build/elf/ld-linux.so.2 --library-path
/usr/src/glibc-build:/usr/src/glibc-build/math:/usr/src/glibc-build/elf:/usr/src/glibc-build/dlfcn:/usr/src/glibc-build/nss:/usr/src/glibc-build/nis:/usr/src/glibc-build/rt:/usr/src/glibc-build/resolv:/usr/src/glibc-build/crypt:/usr/src/glibc-build/linuxthreads
/usr/src/glibc-build/sunrpc/rpcgen -Y ../scripts -c
rpcsvc/bootparam_prot.x -o /usr/src/glibc-build/sunrpc/xbootparam_prot.T
cpp not found
/usr/src/glibc-build/sunrpc/rpcgen: C preprocessor failed with exit code 1
make[2]: *** [/usr/src/glibc-build/sunrpc/xbootparam_prot.stmp] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/glibc-2.2.5/sunrpc'
make[1]: *** [sunrpc/others] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/glibc-2.2.5'
make: *** [all] Error 2
ugh.
--
~
L. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com
7:25pm up 34 days, 8:40, 2 users, load average: 0.25, 0.52, 0.55
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
glibc-2.3.1 released
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/glibc/glibc-2.3.1.tar.gz - -- Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9p3aJSrrWWknCnMIRAkHcAKCe8KfQHuF7WCPtB4JYI4aW5dUd1wCgrtV5 lQkzM4YQHc/qWKiWbO3N5cU= =/lRv -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc-2.2.5 [2] - trying to open MFT
hmm.. Mr. Wonder, I think I would conclude that one could not update glibc via rpm... the sanity check error will only go away if I compile and install the glibc-2.2.5 from source couldn't someone confirm this? is it possible to upgrade glibc via rpm? btw, I noticed once-a-while, there is a message Trying to open MFT. what is MFT? m.w.chang wrote: Tim, I finally compiled and installed the proftpd-1.2.6. The sanity check is really relate to glibc. steps taken: install COL 3.1 (minimum setup) remvoe the old one and install my binutils-2.13 remove old gcc-2.95.2 and install my gcc-2.95.3.rpm --replacefiles remove all caldera libstdc++.rpm install my glibc-2.2.5-1.i386.rpm (size 17M) ldconfig -v reboot compile proftpd-1.2.6, ../configure gave me a sanity check error -- .~.Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. In Linux we trust. / v \ news://news.hkpcug.org /( _ )\ http://www.linux-sxs.org ^ ^2.4.19 9:45pm up 3 days, 23:37, 0 users, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc-2.2.5 [2] - trying to open MFT
go a typo... m.w.chang wrote: hmm.. Mr. Wonder, I think I would conclude that one could not update glibc via rpm... the sanity check error will only go away if I compile unless I compile... not if I compile and install the glibc-2.2.5 from source couldn't someone confirm this? -- .~.Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. In Linux we trust. / v \ news://news.hkpcug.org /( _ )\ http://www.linux-sxs.org ^ ^2.4.19 9:45pm up 3 days, 23:37, 0 users, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc-2.2.5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim Wunder spewed electrons into the ether that resembled: BTW2, are you doing things to the headers of mail messages that cause Mozilla to be unable to thread things properly? I BCC myself on messages I send from work (so I have sent mail copies locally when I'm home) and the BCC's get threaded properly, but the messages that come from the list aren't. nope. messages are threaded ine for me in OE and Kmail - -- Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778 Admin: Linux StepByStep - http://www.linux-sxs.org and http://jobs.linux-sxs.org The only secure computer is one that's unplugged, locked in a safe, and buried 20 feet under the ground in a secret location... and I'm not even too sure about that one -- Dennis Huges, FBI. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9oxe3SrrWWknCnMIRAhirAJ9ZltdwsL6BeEppclws7n52GvwZhQCfaOte lZkmVGs5r8nT/wvZDovD5Jk= =uBTE -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
glibc-2.2.5 [2]
Tim, I finally compiled and installed the proftpd-1.2.6. The sanity check is really relate to glibc. steps taken: install COL 3.1 (minimum setup) remvoe the old one and install my binutils-2.13 remove old gcc-2.95.2 and install my gcc-2.95.3.rpm --replacefiles remove all caldera libstdc++.rpm install my glibc-2.2.5-1.i386.rpm (size 17M) ldconfig -v reboot compile proftpd-1.2.6, ../configure gave me a sanity check error cd /usr/src/glibc-2.2.5 and build the glibc once again checkinstall the gilbc into glibc-2.2.5-2.i386.rpm (note: 18M in size) ldconfig -v reboot compile proftpd-1.2.6 succesfully I need to find out why there was a size difference between the 2 rpms. I will repeat the process again, this time, using only the glibc-2.2.5-2.rpm -- Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux we trust. / v \ news://news.hkpcug.org /( _ )\ http://www.linux-sxs.org ^ ^ ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc-2.2.5
Apps that I can't get to compile: xfree86 - get a bunch of atexit errors during make gcc-3.1.1 and gcc-3.2 - Bootstrap comparison failure! gnucash-CVS and kdemultimedia-CVS - atexit errors during configure Some apps compile OK, though. I managed to compile the srpm for binutils 2.11.93 OK and, in fact, recompiles of glibc have seemed to work. On 10/7/2002 1:46 AM, someone claiming to be m.w.chang wrote: you meant after you installed glibc-2.2.5, your gcc-2.95.3 would no longer compile a thing? hmm.. let me try it tonight. do you want me to compile a specific package? If not, I would just try proftpd-1.2.6. COL 3.1 came with glibc-2.2.1. My installation of glibc 2.2.5 seems to have rendered me incapable of compiling *anything* on my Caldera e3.1-based system. It's interesting that you seem to have compiled and installed glibc 2.2.5 without incident. What glibc were you running prior to 2.2.5? ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc-2.2.5
thank you. here is one prblem when I ran ./configure in proftpd-1.2.6 #include assert.h Syntax error configure:3745: /lib/cpp conftest.c ./configure: /lib/cpp: No such file or directory configure:3745: $? = 126 configure: failed program was: #line 3745 configure #include confdefs.h #include assert.h Syntax error configure:3754: error: C preprocessor /lib/cpp fails sanity check I am now checking google.com for advices...hope it's not related to glibc Tim Wunder wrote: Apps that I can't get to compile: xfree86 - get a bunch of atexit errors during make gcc-3.1.1 and gcc-3.2 - Bootstrap comparison failure! gnucash-CVS and kdemultimedia-CVS - atexit errors during configure Some apps compile OK, though. I managed to compile the srpm for binutils 2.11.93 OK and, in fact, recompiles of glibc have seemed to work. -- .~.Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. In Linux we trust. / v \ news://news.hkpcug.org /( _ )\ http://www.linux-sxs.org ^ ^2.4.19 8:45pm up 1 day, 22:37, 0 users, load average: 1.02, 1.04, 1.01 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc-2.2.5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 m.w.chang spewed electrons into the ether that resembled: you meant after you installed glibc-2.2.5, your gcc-2.95.3 would no longer compile a thing? hmm.. let me try it tonight. do you want me to compile a specific package? If not, I would just try proftpd-1.2.6. no, I mean after glibc-2.3 is installed you can no longer re-compile gcc-3.2 - -- Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778 Admin: Linux StepByStep - http://www.linux-sxs.org and http://jobs.linux-sxs.org In a literature class, the students were given an assignment to write a short story involving all the important ingredients - Nobility, Emotion, Sex, Religion and Mystery. One student handed in the following story: My god! cried the duchess. I'm pregnant. Who did it? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9ob+iSrrWWknCnMIRAl0AAJ9EpBWXgzOjioLJ0UlNb5X+aYspGwCeKbKs YjD5HHSv2WYNSjtq4bJQKGU= =gfFQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc-2.2.5
On 10/7/2002 1:08 PM, someone claiming to be Douglas J Hunley wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim Wunder spewed electrons into the ether that resembled: Really? My installation of glibc 2.2.5 seems to have rendered me incapable of compiling *anything* on my Caldera e3.1-based system. It's interesting that you seem to have compiled and installed glibc 2.2.5 without incident. What glibc were you running prior to 2.2.5? not sure if you meant me or change twunder.. but I was running 2.2.3 prior. of course, this used to be a SuSE box a long time ago.. snip I was replying to chang. Since he was upgrading glibc on a eW3.1 box and was claiming success, I really wanted to know if his success was really what he thought it was. It seems, though, from a subsequent post by him, he may be embarking upon the same path to glibc hell that I've been on. BTW, I managed to find time to install RH 8.0 over the weekend (I happen to *like* bluecurve -- so sue me...), but haven't had the time to get in and configure sendmail, my webserver and my web calender yet. Soon, my compile problems will be solved (well, if not solved, alot closer to being solvable than what they are now)... BTW2, are you doing things to the headers of mail messages that cause Mozilla to be unable to thread things properly? I BCC myself on messages I send from work (so I have sent mail copies locally when I'm home) and the BCC's get threaded properly, but the messages that come from the list aren't. Regards, Tim ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc-2.2.5
On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 00:39:57 -0400 Tim Wunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 06 October 2002 09:21 pm, m.w.chang wrote: glibc-2.3 requires gcc-3.2 and gcc 3.2 is not backward comapatible to older gcc stuffs, right? will it create chaos? you have to use 'checkinstall make install localedata/install-locales' and, BTW glibc-2.3 is out so they are normal. I want to build an rpm and then I will install the COL 3.1 again using the minimum option. hehe...then I upgrade glibc fromt he rpm I made. basically, everything is working fine after reboot. snip Really? My installation of glibc 2.2.5 seems to have rendered me incapable of compiling *anything* on my Caldera e3.1-based system. It's interesting that you seem to have compiled and installed glibc 2.2.5 without incident. What glibc were you running prior to 2.2.5? I compiled glibc 2.2.5 on my desktop and it installed perfectly over top 2.2.4 included in COL 3.1.1. After I made a tarball of the glibc compile directory tree and burned it to a cdrom. Popping that cdrom into a laptop that is architecturally similar... I was able to install 2.2.5 onto it. No bugs and no problems. -- ** Registered Linux User Number 185956 http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=ensafe=offgroup=linux Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net 7:13pm up 209 days, 22 min, 6 users, load average: 0.42, 0.39, 0.31 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
glibc-2.2.5
I just tried compiling glibc-2.2.5 from source using a dummy COL 3.1. I noticed that on the first make install, the localedata was not installed (as revealed by checkinstall). also, the make install will always failed on libpthread, I must reboot to run make install again to really finish the installation process, which will give me a usable part-1 glibc-2.2.5.rpm if I run make install-locale now, it will compile more stuffs. is this what's supposed to be going on? also, if is it possible to remove the old glibc before compiling and intsallating the new glibc? sounds like a chicken-and-egg issues (gcc doesn't allow that). -- .~.Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. In Linux we trust. / v \ news://news.hkpcug.org /( _ )\ http://www.linux-sxs.org ^ ^2.4.19 8:45pm up 22:37, 1 user, load average: 1.00, 0.99, 0.91 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc-2.2.5
glibc-2.3 requires gcc-3.2 and gcc 3.2 is not backward comapatible to older gcc stuffs, right? will it create chaos? you have to use 'checkinstall make install localedata/install-locales' and, BTW glibc-2.3 is out so they are normal. I want to build an rpm and then I will install the COL 3.1 again using the minimum option. hehe...then I upgrade glibc fromt he rpm I made. basically, everything is working fine after reboot. also, the make install will always failed on libpthread, I must reboot to run make install again to really finish the installation process, which will give me a usable part-1 glibc-2.2.5.rpm no issues here. also, if is it possible to remove the old glibc before compiling and intsallating the new glibc? sounds like a chicken-and-egg issues (gcc doesn't allow that). nope. -- Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux we trust. / v \ news://news.hkpcug.org /( _ )\ http://www.linux-sxs.org ^ ^ ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc-2.2.5
you meant after you installed glibc-2.2.5, your gcc-2.95.3 would no longer compile a thing? hmm.. let me try it tonight. do you want me to compile a specific package? If not, I would just try proftpd-1.2.6. COL 3.1 came with glibc-2.2.1. My installation of glibc 2.2.5 seems to have rendered me incapable of compiling *anything* on my Caldera e3.1-based system. It's interesting that you seem to have compiled and installed glibc 2.2.5 without incident. What glibc were you running prior to 2.2.5? -- Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux we trust. / v \ news://news.hkpcug.org /( _ )\ http://www.linux-sxs.org ^ ^ ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc-2.2.5
note: prior to my test buiod of glibc-2.2.5 on the test server, I upgraded her binutils to 2.13 and gcc to 2.95.3 via the rpms I checkinstalled on the production server). -- Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux we trust. / v \ news://news.hkpcug.org /( _ )\ http://www.linux-sxs.org ^ ^ ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc-2.2.5
and the binutils 2.13 was compiled by gcc-2.95.3 note: prior to my test buiod of glibc-2.2.5 on the test server, I upgraded her binutils to 2.13 and gcc to 2.95.3 via the rpms I checkinstalled on the production server). -- Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux we trust. / v \ news://news.hkpcug.org /( _ )\ http://www.linux-sxs.org ^ ^ ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc-2.3 is out
On Sat, 05 Oct 2002 00:37:12 -0400 Greg Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] (by way of Douglas J Hunley[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2002-10/msg00048.html Most interesting thing to play with will be prelink. At last all those bloated C++ apps might start up a bit quicker.. Be a little cautious with the new glibc... I've seen a lot of cry-baby over broken apps and shells (bash) when moving into version 2.30. I'm going to sit back and wait a bit on this one, until at least it's all been ironed out with the LFS guys. -- ** Registered Linux User Number 185956 http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=ensafe=offgroup=linux Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net 11:29am up 206 days, 16:38, 6 users, load average: 0.09, 0.09, 0.09 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc-2.3 is out
On Sat, 05 Oct 2002 00:37:12 -0400 Greg Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] (by way of Douglas J Hunley[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2002-10/msg00048.html Most interesting thing to play with will be prelink. At last all those bloated C++ apps might start up a bit quicker.. Just remember also... when you prelink, your compiled code becomes much larger. If you're working with a project that will run in a small space, then prelink isn't for you. -- ** Registered Linux User Number 185956 http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=ensafe=offgroup=linux Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net 11:31am up 206 days, 16:40, 6 users, load average: 0.10, 0.11, 0.09 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc-2.3 is out
glibc-2.3 requires gcc-3.2. maybe that;s the resaon... I am about to try my first glibc-2.2.5 compile.. hmm... got lots of obstacles when I started to do things myself: sendmail, perl, sasl, ... Be a little cautious with the new glibc... I've seen a lot of cry-baby over broken apps and shells (bash) when moving into version 2.30. -- .~.Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. In Linux we trust. / v \ news://news.hkpcug.org /( _ )\ http://www.linux-sxs.org ^ ^2.4.19 10:45am up 12:37, 2 users, load average: 1.12, 1.53, 1.25 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: My glibc problem...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 m.w.chang spewed electrons into the ether that resembled: assumptions that's not applicable to amateurs like me. just the nail I hit with sendmail from source related to smrsh -_- I *still* don't understand why smrsh didn't work for you. *Everyone* I've asked (from guru, to newbie) that I know has used those instructions didn't have issues. - -- Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778 Admin: Linux StepByStep - http://www.linux-sxs.org and http://jobs.linux-sxs.org Linux us a _real_ OS, not some we filled in the paperwork and it is now standards compliant. -- Linus Torvalds -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9m7aoSrrWWknCnMIRAikZAKCFE1FP6ArNGxmU9FqxDL0x0FJavQCfQCPM 3SYr4QgrmskFZlcCLbIMgi4= =xQ7u -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: My glibc problem...
For a high resolution satellite photo of hurricane Lili go here: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/lili2045-10-02-02.jpg What a storm.. Best Peck ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
glibc and RedHat 8.0
RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93. http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest glibc is 2.2.5. RedHat 7.3 shipped with glibc-2.2.5. Should I care that RedHat is shipping a non-standard glibc (if that's what they're doing)? Regards, Tim ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc and RedHat 8.0
Well it wouldn't be the first time RH has done something like this (think 7.0 and the gcc fiasco). Is there any info anywhere on what this 2.2.93 really is? On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Tim Wunder wrote: RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93. http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest glibc is 2.2.5. RedHat 7.3 shipped with glibc-2.2.5. Should I care that RedHat is shipping a non-standard glibc (if that's what they're doing)? Regards, Tim ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc and RedHat 8.0
Tim Wunder wrote: RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93. http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest glibc is 2.2.5. RedHat 7.3 shipped with glibc-2.2.5. Should I care that RedHat is shipping a non-standard glibc (if that's what they're doing)? Regards, Tim Believe they need it to make their new GUI work. Blue screen or something like that. It's supposed to be a hybrid between Gnome and KDE designed for desktops of the business community. Sort of a poor man's M$. Lee ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc and RedHat 8.0
Other than it's a snapshot of the development version, currently at 2.2.94, beats me. I cannot find what it will become when it's released. 2.3.0? 2.4.0? Anybody know? I would've thought that the development version of glibc would be 2.3.x, isn't that the way the gnu folks do things? The appear to be the only distro shipping it, according to distrowatch, anyway. Everybody else is shipping 2.2.5. On 10/1/2002 10:49 AM, someone claiming to be Net Llama! wrote: Well it wouldn't be the first time RH has done something like this (think 7.0 and the gcc fiasco). Is there any info anywhere on what this 2.2.93 really is? On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Tim Wunder wrote: RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93. http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest glibc is 2.2.5. RedHat 7.3 shipped with glibc-2.2.5. Should I care that RedHat is shipping a non-standard glibc (if that's what they're doing)? Regards, Tim ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc and RedHat 8.0
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Lee wrote: Tim Wunder wrote: RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93. http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest glibc is 2.2.5. RedHat 7.3 shipped with glibc-2.2.5. Should I care that RedHat is shipping a non-standard glibc (if that's what they're doing)? Regards, Tim Believe they need it to make their new GUI work. Blue screen or something like that. It's supposed to be a hybrid between Gnome and KDE designed for desktops of the business community. Sort of a poor man's M$. I sure hope that you're joking, seeing as how glibc has just about nothing to do with the appearance of a window manager. -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
My glibc problem...
Some of you may remember that my updating glibc to 2.2.4, then 2.2.5, on
my Caldera eWorkstation 3.1 system has caused me a little grief. Most
centering around an error involving an undefined reference to atexit
when compiling and/or configuring source code.
Well, while reading up on WTF glibc-2.2.93 was, I ran accross these
little nuggets in the current glibc FAQ:
quote
3.23. I get undefined reference to `atexit'
{UD} This means that your installation is somehow broken. The situation
is the same as for 'stat', 'fstat', etc (see question 2.7). Investigate
why the linker does not pick up libc_nonshared.a.
If a similar message is issued at runtime this means that the
application or DSO is not linked against libc. This can cause problems
since 'atexit' is not exported anymore.
2.7. Looking through the shared libc file I haven't found the functions
`stat', `lstat', `fstat', and `mknod' and while linking on my Linux
system I get error messages. How is this supposed to work?
{RM} Believe it or not, stat and lstat (and fstat, and mknod) are
supposed to be undefined references in libc.so.6! Your problem is
probably a missing or incorrect /usr/lib/libc.so file; note that this is
a small text file now, not a symlink to libc.so.6. It should look
something like this:
GROUP ( libc.so.6 libc_nonshared.a )
/quote
Interestingly, my /usr/lib/libc.so file is as such:
$ cat /usr/lib/libc.so
/* GNU ld script
Use the shared library, but some functions are only in
the static library, so try that secondarily. */
GROUP ( /lib/libc.so.6 /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a )
So that looks right, both /lib/libc.so.6 and /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a
exist and they both appear to be version 2.2.5 files (based on the file
creation dates).
Based on the FAQ's answer of Investigate why the linker does not pick
up libc_nonshared.a..., I'm thinking now that binutils may be the
problem. Anyone know of any other reason that the linker wouldn't be
picking up libc_nonshared.a? Anyone recommend what version of binutils
to try?
Regards,
Tim
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: My glibc problem...
binutils-2.11.90 seems to work just fine for me.
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Tim Wunder wrote:
Some of you may remember that my updating glibc to 2.2.4, then 2.2.5, on
my Caldera eWorkstation 3.1 system has caused me a little grief. Most
centering around an error involving an undefined reference to atexit
when compiling and/or configuring source code.
Well, while reading up on WTF glibc-2.2.93 was, I ran accross these
little nuggets in the current glibc FAQ:
quote
3.23. I get undefined reference to `atexit'
{UD} This means that your installation is somehow broken. The situation
is the same as for 'stat', 'fstat', etc (see question 2.7). Investigate
why the linker does not pick up libc_nonshared.a.
If a similar message is issued at runtime this means that the
application or DSO is not linked against libc. This can cause problems
since 'atexit' is not exported anymore.
2.7. Looking through the shared libc file I haven't found the functions
`stat', `lstat', `fstat', and `mknod' and while linking on my Linux
system I get error messages. How is this supposed to work?
{RM} Believe it or not, stat and lstat (and fstat, and mknod) are
supposed to be undefined references in libc.so.6! Your problem is
probably a missing or incorrect /usr/lib/libc.so file; note that this is
a small text file now, not a symlink to libc.so.6. It should look
something like this:
GROUP ( libc.so.6 libc_nonshared.a )
/quote
Interestingly, my /usr/lib/libc.so file is as such:
$ cat /usr/lib/libc.so
/* GNU ld script
Use the shared library, but some functions are only in
the static library, so try that secondarily. */
GROUP ( /lib/libc.so.6 /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a )
So that looks right, both /lib/libc.so.6 and /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a
exist and they both appear to be version 2.2.5 files (based on the file
creation dates).
Based on the FAQ's answer of Investigate why the linker does not pick
up libc_nonshared.a..., I'm thinking now that binutils may be the
problem. Anyone know of any other reason that the linker wouldn't be
picking up libc_nonshared.a? Anyone recommend what version of binutils
to try?
Regards,
Tim
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
--
~~
Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc and RedHat 8.0
Well, according to: ftp://ftp.uni-kl.de/pub/linux/redhat/redhat/8.0/en/os/i386/RedHat/RPMS/ If you scroll down you will see gcc-3.2 and glibc 2.2.93. I hope that they didn't use a devel snapshot of glibc. I don't use RH and I'm not on any of the RH mailing lists. Anybody hear anything about it from there? Jim On Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:49, Net Llama! wrote: Well it wouldn't be the first time RH has done something like this (think 7.0 and the gcc fiasco). Is there any info anywhere on what this 2.2.93 really is? On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Tim Wunder wrote: RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93. http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest glibc is 2.2.5. RedHat 7.3 shipped with glibc-2.2.5. Should I care that RedHat is shipping a non-standard glibc (if that's what they're doing)? Regards, Tim -- 1:42pm up 10 days, 22:57, 3 users, load average: 0.28, 0.29, 0.27 Running Caldera W3.1 - Linux - because life is too short for reboots... ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc and RedHat 8.0
Here are details : http://rpmfind.net/linux/redhat/8.0/en/os/i386/RELEASE-NOTES Patrick --- Tim Wunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93. http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest glibc is 2.2.5. RedHat 7.3 shipped with glibc-2.2.5. Should I care that RedHat is shipping a non-standard glibc (if that's what they're doing)? ___ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: My glibc problem...
On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 11:54:36 -0400 Tim Wunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some of you may remember that my updating glibc to 2.2.4, then 2.2.5, ---snip--- Based on the FAQ's answer of Investigate why the linker does not pick up libc_nonshared.a..., I'm thinking now that binutils may be the problem. Anyone know of any other reason that the linker wouldn't be picking up libc_nonshared.a? Anyone recommend what version of binutils to try? Binutils 2.12.1... no problems, what-so-ever. Are there ANY other copies of libc_nonshared.a or any other parts or pieces of glibc on your system in question... other than the correct locations? -- ** Registered Linux User Number 185956 http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=ensafe=offgroup=linux Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net 6:03pm up 202 days, 23:12, 6 users, load average: 0.03, 0.07, 0.01 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: glibc and RedHat 8.0
Especially notable are these two: The following packages have been deprecated and will be removed in a future release of Red Hat Linux: o LPRng (although it remains the default print spooler for this release) o lilo o sndconfig o RPM will also suggest package(s) that will satisfy unresolved dependencies if the rpmdb-redhat package is installed. For example, if you are attempting to upgrade the gnumeric without a necessary library, you will see the following message: rpm -Uvh gnumeric-1.0.5-5.i386.rpm error: Failed dependencies: libbonobo-print.so.2 is needed by gnumeric-1.0.5-5 libbonobo.so.2 is needed by gnumeric-1.0.5-5 libbonobox.so.2 is needed by gnumeric-1.0.5-5 Suggested resolutions: bonobo-1.0.20-3.i386.rpm The above mechanism is equivalent to (and will replace) the existing --redhatprovides mechanism. patrick Kapturkiewicz wrote: Here are details : http://rpmfind.net/linux/redhat/8.0/en/os/i386/RELEASE-NOTES Patrick --- Tim Wunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93. http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest glibc is 2.2.5. RedHat 7.3 shipped with glibc-2.2.5. Should I care that RedHat is shipping a non-standard glibc (if that's what they're doing)? -- ~ L. Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step TyGeMo:http://netllama.ipfox.com 4:30pm up 9:18, 1 user, load average: 0.13, 0.10, 0.06 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
