Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
The one in RPM. However, glibc 2.3.1-3 should (temporarily) work
around this issue (and a rebuild of static libraries in the RPM package
will help, too).
Well, I get the error in the middle of a rpm build, so the couple of
static libraries in there should have already
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:37:42PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Jeff Bailey wrote:
It seems that this is caused by pre glibc-2.3 static libraries. I
don't yet understand the whole problem, but I do know that a simple
recompile of the static library makes it pick up the new symbols
correctly.
Jeff Bailey wrote:
Is it perhaps using an installed library instead of the newly built
one? Either that or it's probably pulling in a static library for
something else. I don't have enough information to offer a better
suggestion.
The failing link is linking a static rpm binary, so yes, it
Jeff Bailey wrote:
It seems that this is caused by pre glibc-2.3 static libraries. I
don't yet understand the whole problem, but I do know that a simple
recompile of the static library makes it pick up the new symbols
correctly.
Which static library do you mean, one of the ones in glibc, or
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:37:42PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Jeff Bailey wrote:
It seems that this is caused by pre glibc-2.3 static libraries. I
don't yet understand the whole problem, but I do know that a simple
recompile of the static library makes it pick up the new symbols
correctly.
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
The one in RPM. However, glibc 2.3.1-3 should (temporarily) work
around this issue (and a rebuild of static libraries in the RPM package
will help, too).
Well, I get the error in the middle of a rpm build, so the couple of
static libraries in there should have already
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 01:41:23PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
The one in RPM. However, glibc 2.3.1-3 should (temporarily) work
around this issue (and a rebuild of static libraries in the RPM
package will help, too).
Well, I get the error in the middle of a rpm build, so the couple of
Jeff Bailey wrote:
Is it perhaps using an installed library instead of the newly built
one? Either that or it's probably pulling in a static library for
something else. I don't have enough information to offer a better
suggestion.
The failing link is linking a static rpm binary, so yes, it
(The other Jeff replying...)
It seems that this is caused by pre glibc-2.3 static libraries. I
don't yet understand the whole problem, but I do know that a simple
recompile of the static library makes it pick up the new symbols
correctly.
Daniel has one proposed fixed for glibc. I'm hoping to
9 matches
Mail list logo
