We had a system running 4.3-RELEASE that I used the sysinstall upgrade
mechanism to upgrade to 5.0-RELEASE. I installed compat4x to use our
existing 4.x binaries.
Immediately after rebooting, I noticed most old 4.x binaries were
complaining about _stdoutp being an undefined symbol. However,
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 11:41:32AM -0600, Kevin Day wrote:
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 9 Feb 1 00:18 libc.so - libc.so.5
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 16 Jul 5 2002 libc.so.3 - /usr/lib/libc.so
^
This is seriously messed up. See below.
At 11:42 AM 2/2/2003, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 11:41:32AM -0600, Kevin Day wrote:
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 9 Feb 1 00:18 libc.so - libc.so.5
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 16 Jul 5 2002 libc.so.3 - /usr/lib/libc.so
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 11:53:22AM -0600, Kevin Day wrote:
Ok, I admit, no matter how it happened, an application using the wrong libc
is a bad thing.
But, how are things supposed to work?
Apps that need the old libc.so.4 will find it in
/usr/lib/compat/libc.so.4 (or /usr/lib/libc.so.4 if
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 11:41:32AM -0600, Kevin Day wrote:
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 9 Feb 1 00:18 libc.so - libc.so.5
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 16 Jul 5 2002 libc.so.3 - /usr/lib/libc.so
Delete this.
-r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 571480 Aug 5 13:45 libc.so.4
Delete this.
-r--r--r-- 1 root wheel
At 11:54 AM 2/2/2003, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
Ok, I admit, no matter how it happened, an application using the wrong
libc
is a bad thing.
But, how are things supposed to work?
Apps that need the old libc.so.4 will find it in
/usr/lib/compat/libc.so.4 (or /usr/lib/libc.so.4 if you didn't
