Hi
I'm experiencing the following problem while using Blackdown's
jdk118-v3-glibc-2.1.3.tar.bz2:
/usr/java/jdk118_v3/bin/../lib/i686/green_threads/libzip.so: symbol
errno, version GLIBC_2.0 not defined in file libc.so.6 with link time
reference (libzip.so)
I'm runni
I have RedHat Linux 7.2 with a lot of the RPM updates applied from
/pub/redhat/updates/7.2/en/os/athlon and
/pub/redhat/updates/7.2/en/os/i386
... from the nearest FTP mirror
The last glibc for RedHat 7.2 was for glibc-2-2.4.
Now I want to install J2SDK 1.4.2_02.
Granted that RedHat 7.2 is not
Hello,
I built the Sun's CVM using the blackdown Jdk 1.3 for linux on a redhat 7.1
box. It works fine. I then built it using a arm-cross compiler for a arm
linux kernel (based 2.4.0). I get the following error ..
/cvm: error in loading shared libraries: ./cvm: symbol sem_init, version
GLIBC2.1 n
nch of ways to do this with alot of constraints.
>>
>>More details would be required to answer this correctly.
>>
>>One way which may work is compiling the java application into native
>>code with gcj.
>>
>>gcj is the gcc java compiler.
>>
>>Ther
Ross Mark wrote:
>
> If you don't need a 1.2 jvm then try Kaffe as last time I tried it
> the footprint was <5M. Depending on how much space you have the full
> 1.1.8 jre from Blackdown is a fair bit smaller than the 1.2.
I didn't find any glibc20 1.1.8 at blackdown.org -- please, point it out
> > gcj is the gcc java compiler.
>
> I want to investigate this -- do you have any links? I really need to
> know how big that new library is.
http://gcc.gnu.org/java ... though it's not yet had work done
to optimize it for a particularly small footprint.
-
va compiler.
>
> There are some issues with this. gcj requires a library just like
> glibc. I think it's called libgcj or libjava. It's big.(Don't remember).
> But if you can add another native library that's ok. The other issue is
> that I don't think i
just like
glibc. I think it's called libgcj or libjava. It's big.(Don't remember).
But if you can add another native library that's ok. The other issue is
that I don't think it's compatible with glibc. Maybe older version are.
Not sure. But older versions may have
OK, first off, I'm clearly the newbie ;>
[1] We design and build several lean & mean Linux-based network objects,
including firewalls and routers, all of which are currently running
glibc 2.0.7 compiled applications.
[2] We have a requirement to run a third party application (J
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Forgot 2 more questions:
2) Does setting LD_ASSUME_KERNEL affect anything else apart from the JVM?
3) Most sites say that this is due to programming assumptions in the JVM that
are no longer valid in the i686 glibc ( which I have ). Will
I set the JDK to be used by JB4
Foundation to Sun's JDK 1.3.1 b24.
Does anybody know up to what combination of 1.3.x JVM / glibc 2.2.x / 2.4.x
kernel is the LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 still required?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www
Using a RedHat 6.x distro, I have a lot of things updated:
kernel 2.2.19 with reiserfs
java 1.2.2 ( Sun and Blackdown )
java 1.3 ( Sun, Blackdown, and IBM )
glibc 2.1.3
binutils 2.9.5
cpp 2.95
gcc 2.95
gcc-c++ 2.95
gcc-java-2.95
qt 2.3
Xfree 4.0.3
kde 2.1
I have upgraded gcc from 2.9.1 ( that
>>>>> "Joi" == Joi Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joi> I understand that glibc was a split development branch which
Joi> is now being merged back into libc. In future there won't be
Joi> a glibc, just a single libc branch. Perhaps t
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Carsten Hoeger wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, Peter John Cameron wrote:
>
> > Where can I find a Suse rpm of the latest glibc, or at least glibc > 2.1.0?
> > Suse 7.0 Professional doesn't seem to include any glibc package (why not?)
> > and
On Mon, Oct 30, Peter John Cameron wrote:
> Where can I find a Suse rpm of the latest glibc, or at least glibc > 2.1.0?
> Suse 7.0 Professional doesn't seem to include any glibc package (why not?)
> and all my web searches have proved fruitless. I need glibc > 2.1.0 for the
&
Where can I find a Suse rpm of the latest glibc, or at least glibc > 2.1.0?
Suse 7.0 Professional doesn't seem to include any glibc package (why not?)
and all my web searches have proved fruitless. I need glibc > 2.1.0 for the
latest IBM Java SDK. I downloaded source for glibc an
Pedro Guimaraes wrote:
> The glibc2-HOWTO explains how you can have libc5 and glibc2 installed and
> both working. Read it *carefully* and everything should work if you follow
> the instructions!
>
> -Pedro
I did read the HOWTO before I wrote to the newsgroup. I didn't find what
I needed in it,
> I also did a build (glibc-2.1.2) but I can't change the
> /lib/ld-linux.so.2 link because of others using it. Anyone
> know how to get java to use the new library without
> changing that link?
The glibc2-HOWTO explains how you can have libc5 and glibc2 installed and
both
Pedro Guimaraes wrote:
>
> Ok... I found out from this list that jdk1.2.2 needs glibc-2.1.*
>
I also did a build (glibc-2.1.2) but I can't change the
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 link because of others using it. Anyone
know how to get java to use the new library without
changing that
Ok... I found out from this list that jdk1.2.2 needs glibc-2.1.*
So I installed glibc-2.1.1 but when I do java it instead tries to load
/lib/libc.so.5 instead of /lib/libc.so.6 which is linked to glibc-2.1.*
Any way to make this work? :)
Thanks
-Pedro
Hi Everyone,
I noticed someone posting earlier about having the Blackdown jdk1.1.8 (which
looks, from the filename, like it requires glibc-2.1.2) on a RedHat 6.0 system
(which has glibc2.1.1). I know the blackdown web-site say glibc2.1.3 is
required for the native threads package, but what
I got some problem while install jdk1.2.2 rc3, and my machine is like this: SuSe Linux
6.0, ( kernel 2.2.5 ) + egcs-2.91.66
1. untar program and set path -- no problem
2. run java,
it metioned can not load share library libhpi.so,
while i check the .java_wrapper shell, find jre/bin/re
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 07:30:34PM -0800, Alan Westhagen wrote:
> I tried to get this to work with blackdown jdk1.2.2-RC3. I already
> had URW fonts. Some of the documentation seemed to point towards
> installing Microsoft truetype fonts, as well. Since I am running
> RH6.0, which has the xfs f
Juergen Kreileder wrote:
>
> > Nathan Meyers writes:
>
> Nathan> Paolo Ciccone wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 11:22:03PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
> >> > No big surprise, they've commented out the relevant entries in the
> >> > font.properties file. I'll
Juergen Kreileder wrote:
>
> No big surprise, they've commented out the relevant entries in the
> font.properties file. I'll do the same for the next Blackdown release
> as people think that it is a bug, but it isn't.
>
Exactly, it just means that a font package isn't installed on the host
sys
Juergen Kreileder wrote:
>
> > Nathan Meyers writes:
>
> Nathan> Paolo Ciccone wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 11:22:03PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
> >> > No big surprise, they've commented out the relevant entries in the
> >> > font.properties file. I'll
On Wed, Dec 22, 1999 at 01:57:01AM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
> Paolo> Does anybody know if installing the URW fonts fixes the
> Paolo> problem ?
>
> Yes, but you have to restore the original '.1' entries in
> font.properties too.
I believe this is the best solution. Any reason for
> Nathan Meyers writes:
Nathan> Paolo Ciccone wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 11:22:03PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
>> > No big surprise, they've commented out the relevant entries in the
>> > font.properties file. I'll do the same for the next Blackdown releas
Paolo Ciccone wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 11:22:03PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
> > No big surprise, they've commented out the relevant entries in the
> > font.properties file. I'll do the same for the next Blackdown release
> > as people think that it is a bug, but it isn't.
> >
> >
> Paolo Ciccone writes:
Paolo> On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 11:22:03PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
>> No big surprise, they've commented out the relevant entries in
>> the font.properties file. I'll do the same for the next
>> Blackdown release as people think that it is a bug
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 11:22:03PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
> No big surprise, they've commented out the relevant entries in the
> font.properties file. I'll do the same for the next Blackdown release
> as people think that it is a bug, but it isn't.
>
> Try to display dingbats characters
> Alan Westhagen writes:
Alan> I spent about a day trying to solve font problems with
Alan> Blackdown JDK 1.2.2 RC3. I improved the overall font
Alan> situation with my RH6.0 system, but could not get rid of the
Alan> many warning messages about zapf fonts. This problem
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 08:51:03AM -0800, Paolo Ciccone wrote:
> The Sun/Inprise JKD has been tested with glibc 2.1.1.
Does anybody know whether it is possible to install the
glibc 2.1.2 as a secondary libc (having glibc 2.0.7 as
primary libc)? I´d like to do this in order to use
JBuil
John Hartman wrote:
>
> I wasn't able to run the Blackdown JDK 1.2.2 (or at least the JRE) with
> glibc 2.1.1, but installing glibc 2.1.2 did the trick. Still having
> annoying font problems, though...
>
> John
>
> André Dahlqvist wrote:
> >
> > Hi
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 12:31:17AM +0100, André Dahlqvist wrote:
> I noted in Blackdowns README file that glibc 2.1.2 is required, and read
> in Sun's README file that glic 2.1 is required for their version. Does
> anyone know if they mean that any 2.1.x version works?
The Sun/I
I wasn't able to run the Blackdown JDK 1.2.2 (or at least the JRE) with
glibc 2.1.1, but installing glibc 2.1.2 did the trick. Still having
annoying font problems, though...
John
André Dahlqvist wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I noted in Blackdowns README file that glibc 2.1.2 is requir
Hi
I noted in Blackdowns README file that glibc 2.1.2 is required, and read
in Sun's README file that glic 2.1 is required for their version. Does
anyone know if they mean that any 2.1.x version works?
// André
Hello,
I am not sure if this is the right mailing list to
ask this question. But, I've downloaded this file 3
times si far (and the server apperes to be very
buisy).
For some reason, it won't execute. This is the output
message:
bash: ./jdk-1.2.2-RC2-linux-i386-glib
"John N. Alegre" wrote:
>
> Hmmm Im on a RedHat 6.0 system and I just did a
>
> rpm -Uvh ftp://ftp.at.somesite.somewhere/the/path/to/glibc-2.1.2-11.i386.rpm
>
> and it worked fine the first time. No conflicts, No Deps.
>
> Now I do recall a lot of proble
Hmmm Im on a RedHat 6.0 system and I just did a
rpm -Uvh ftp://ftp.at.somesite.somewhere/the/path/to/glibc-2.1.2-11.i386.rpm
and it worked fine the first time. No conflicts, No Deps.
Now I do recall a lot of problems when I tried to do that back in 5.0 with
glibc-2.0.something but this one
Updating glibc is very tricky stuff, with many dependencies and
opportunities to break the system midway through installation. The usual
way to do it (at least in RedHat-land) is to update your distribution
installation.
This document discusses how to do a glibc install:
http
s not found in /bin/i386/native_threads/java
It looks like I have glibc 2.0.7, so I'm downloading glibc 2.1.2 from
http://metalab.unc.edu/pub/gnu/glibc
I suppose I have to compile it myself, huh?
I currently have GCC 2.7.2.3 and Linux 2.2.6.
So, do I need a new GCC also? What about G++?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>>>> Robb Shecter writes:
>
> > Peter Pilgrim wrote:
> >>
> >> Could you print this glibc version info on the shrinked wrapped boxes
> >> for SuSE 6.3 and for all forthcoming SuSEs.
>
>
>>>>> Robb Shecter writes:
> Peter Pilgrim wrote:
>>
>> Could you print this glibc version info on the shrinked wrapped boxes
>> for SuSE 6.3 and for all forthcoming SuSEs.
> Hi - while on the topic of Suse, Java and glibc versions,
> [ob java+li
Peter Pilgrim wrote:
>
> Could you print this glibc version info on the shrinked wrapped boxes
> for SuSE 6.3 and for all forthcoming SuSEs.
Hi - while on the topic of Suse, Java and glibc versions,
[ob java+linux]
I want to check out this "Java/Web" version of Sniff+,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>>>> ermirza erekose writes:
>
> Please quote correctly.
>
> >> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Oliver Fels wrote:
> >> >6.0 is (still) libc5,
> >> 6.0 is glibc 2.0.
>
> > hmmm ... I believe 6
Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't mix the distributions: SuSE 6.0 (and we're discussing SuSE here)
> is libc5 - RedHat 6.0 is glibc 2.1.
I think you are mistaken. The SuSe 6.0 which I am running here came
with glibc 2.
>>>>> ermirza erekose writes:
Please quote correctly.
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Oliver Fels wrote:
>> >6.0 is (still) libc5,
>> 6.0 is glibc 2.0.
> hmmm ... I believe 6.0 is glibc 2.1
Don't mix the distributions: SuSE 6.0 (and we're discuss
> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Oliver Fels wrote:
> >6.0 is (still) libc5,
> 6.0 is glibc 2.0.
hmmm ... I believe 6.0 is glibc 2.1
The latest glibc is 2.1.2
>
> >6.1 is glibc2.0 and
> >6.2 is based on glibc2.1,
> and
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Oliver Fels wrote:
>6.0 is (still) libc5,
6.0 is glibc 2.0.
>6.1 is glibc2.0 and
>6.2 is based on glibc2.1,
and 6.3 is glibc 2.1.2
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
>>>>> Peter Pilgrim writes:
> Quick GlibC Question?
> How do you find what glibc2.x version you have?
/lib/libc.so - if you get a segmentation fault, it's glibc 2.0.7;-)
For example:
$ /lib/libc.so.6
GNU C Library stable release version 2.1.2, by Roland McGrath e
do rpm -qa | grep glib
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Peter Pilgrim wrote:
> Quick GlibC Question?
>
> How do you find what glibc2.x version you have?
>
> I couldn't answer it satisfactorily when asked me this morning.
> ( I haven't downloaded JDK pre 1.2 release y
t; This works in most cases, not in all, best example is Oracle 8.15i
> which needs a patch to work under SuSE 6.2 with glibc 2.1.
>
> Oliver
This is quite confusing because there is no way or knowing for sure.
You can't type a command or do on `/bin/ls -l /usr/lib/libc*'.
First
nux 6.1 which I assume is glibc2.0 anyway.)
Yes:
6.0 is (still) libc5,
6.1 is glibc2.0 and
6.2 is based on glibc2.1,
though the old libs are still delivered for backward compatability.
This works in most cases, not in all, best example is Oracle 8.15i
which needs a patch to work unde
Hi there,
Is the jdk117_v1a (glibc version) supposed to work
on redhat 6.0 (glibc2.1, kernel 2.2.5-15) or are there glibc2.0/glibc2.1
incompatibilities at work here ?
I'm using native threads with this jdk on redhat6.0 for
a multithreaded server that used JNI. If I use a single
c
Hi,
Question: I've got Suse 6.0, and don't know how to figure out what
glibc version I have, and thus what version to download. I tried
doing a "locate glibc", and also "rpm -qa | grep glibc", and didn't
find anything useful. So, I really have two questi
>>>>> Aniruddha Patro writes:
Aniruddha> This might help you folks...
Aniruddha> I've a glibc2.1 runtime on a libc5 Slackware 3.5(2.0.34 upgraded to 2.3.2).
Aniruddha> Compiled glibc2.1 and installed it under /usr/local/glibc-2.1
Aniruddha> added /usr/local
This might help you folks...
I've a glibc2.1 runtime on a libc5 Slackware 3.5(2.0.34 upgraded to 2.3.2).
Compiled glibc2.1 and installed it under /usr/local/glibc-2.1
added /usr/local/glibc2.1/lib to /etc/ld.so.conf
Created links
/lib/libc.so.6 to /lib/libc.so.6
/lib/ld-linux
>>>>> Nathan Meyers writes:
> The difficulty with the JDK1.2/Slackware installation turned out to be a
> very incomplete installation of glibc: libc.so.6 had been installed by
> copying, but none of the other hundreds of related libraries and support
> files was th
The difficulty with the JDK1.2/Slackware installation turned out to be a
very incomplete installation of glibc: libc.so.6 had been installed by
copying, but none of the other hundreds of related libraries and support
files was there.
If anyone has some good words of wisdom on putting glibc on a
Linux. Needless to
say, the Win32 base has moved to Java2.
Unfortunately, it is as much a glibc/libdl issue as it is a JDK issue.
b.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
t's
> being done by the Blackdown folks.
>
> Also, I'm wondering how long it might be until a native-threads
> version of the JDK (either 1.1.x or 1.2) is working with glibc 2.1.
> Is the problem in linuxthreads, or the JDK? Where can I read more
> about it, and possibly lend a h
Hi all-
I should start by saying "Thanks!" for all the great work that's
being done by the Blackdown folks.
Also, I'm wondering how long it might be until a native-threads
version of the JDK (either 1.1.x or 1.2) is working with glibc 2.1.
Is the problem in linuxthreads, or t
thanks, I have 117_v3 but I'm wondering when 1.2 will be available.
-- dog writes:
>codea wrt:
>> does any one have and indication as to when a version of the jdk 1.2
>> will be available that is compatible with glibc 2.1? Couldn't find
>> the answer in the a
codea wrt:
> does any one have and indication as to when a version of the jdk 1.2
> will be available that is compatible with glibc 2.1? Couldn't find
> the answer in the archive or FAQs.
jdk117_v2 or jdk117_v3.
dog
---
Hi all,
does any one have and indication as to when a version of the jdk 1.2
will be available that is compatible with glibc 2.1? Couldn't find
the answer in the archive or FAQs.
thanks, conrad
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
Is this a no-no in terms of JVM running with native threads support under
glibc 2.1.1-6 on a Dual PII with 512MB RAM system running RedHat Linux 6.0
(as specified in your Bug Report)?
(I can run simple stand-alone programs, but not the Apache-JServ Servlet
engine)
OR
There exists a patch or a
Hi,
I have been trying to install JDK117v3 into our Slackware 3.6 (kernel
2.0.36) without sucess. We then tried to recently upgrade to glibc2 and
consistantly got the erorr message (nothing works by the way):
web2:~/jdk117_v3# java
/root/jdk117_v3/bin/java: /root/jdk117_v3/bin/i686/green_threads
Thanks to the list for the explanation why glibc 2.1 breaks the older
JDKs. The newly posted 117_v2 for glibc 2.1 works and I can now test out
the Enhydra server app.
Steve
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On Tue, 4 May 1999, Steve Byrne wrote:
> Scott Murray writes:
[snip]
> > It seems to fix the problem I (and others I think) had with Runtime.exec
> > hanging sometimes when used with native threads. Which is good, as I
> > was almost resigned to putting in some Linux specific code into the ap
Scott Murray writes:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Tom McMichael wrote:
>
> [snip!]
>
> > Good point Paul ... checked out jitter bug and according to the "DONE"
> > section the two choices for glibc 2.1 are:
> > 1) jdk 1.2
> > 2) pre-pre-release
On Tue, 4 May 1999, Tom McMichael wrote:
> Is there a reason why you haven't tried jdk117_v2 with glibc 2.1.1.
> I'm using it on my RH 6.0 install and it works great (using with
> swing and JDBC).
Because I've been sitting on this tarball a week waiting for a response
f
Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > An _unofficial_ version 1.1.6v5 compiled against glibc 2.1.1 pre1 is
> > available at http://www.seawood.org/java/ . Try to be gentle. If one
> > could mirror it or bless it and put it with the official releases to be
> > mirrored, my pr
> An _unofficial_ version 1.1.6v5 compiled against glibc 2.1.1 pre1 is
> available at http://www.seawood.org/java/ . Try to be gentle. If one
> could mirror it or bless it and put it with the official releases to be
> mirrored, my provider would be grateful. :)
Well, I can mirror
An _unofficial_ version 1.1.6v5 compiled against glibc 2.1.1 pre1 is
available at http://www.seawood.org/java/ . Try to be gentle. If someone
could mirror it or bless it and put it with the official releases to be
mirrored, my provider would be grateful. :)
Details. It was built on a Red Hat
Red Hat 6.0 comes with glibc 2.1.1. When attempting to run 'java' from the
Blackdown jdk 1.1.7v1 release, we get the error message:
/tmp/m/jdk1.1.7v1/bin/../bin/i686/green_threads/java: error in loading shared
libraries: /tmp/m/jdk1.1.7v1/bin/../lib/i686/green_threads/libjava.so:
> Scott Murray writes:
Scott> I don't want to sound ungrateful for the 1.2 effort (the
Scott> initial results of which I'm using with great success), but
Scott> is there an ETA for the release of jdk117_v2?
No, we want to make a JDK 1.1.8 release but we still haven't got the
sour
Is there going to be a fix any time soon? I can't run jdk 1.1.7 or
1.2pre with this version of glibc. Now that all of the major
distributions are moving to this, it might be a good time to revisit
this problem.
Thanks!
Tarun
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Tom McMichael wrote:
[snip!]
> Good point Paul ... checked out jitter bug and according to the "DONE"
> section the two choices for glibc 2.1 are:
> 1) jdk 1.2
> 2) pre-pre-release of jdk117_v2 available at ...
>
> http://www.wisp.net/~kreil
Paul Ho wrote:
> At 05:20 PM -0700 04/26/99, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
>
> >For 1.1 you may want to back up to 116v5, or you can try 1.2pre-v1,
> >but I've personally had no success with 1.1.7 and glibc2.1 either.
>
> There is a solution for jdk117 on glibc 2.0 and 2.
At 06:09 PM -0500 04/26/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Is there still a planned glibc 2.1 release of pre-v1?
JDK1.2 pre-v1 works with glibc2.1
You have to use green threads and nojit.
README.linux have more info.
(BTW, from the README.linux pre-v1 was bulit on glibc 2
At 05:20 PM -0700 04/26/99, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
>For 1.1 you may want to back up to 116v5, or you can try 1.2pre-v1,
>but I've personally had no success with 1.1.7 and glibc2.1 either.
There is a solution for jdk117 on glibc 2.0 and 2.1
Read JitterBug for detail.
It's more
Pete Wyckoff wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Well I think the common problem with glibc 2.1 (2.1.1)
> > is the error on excuting the java binary :
> >
> > ./../bin/i586/green_threads/java: error in loading shared libraries:
> > ./../lib/i586/
> > gre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Has using glibc 2.1 with 1.2pre-v1 been confirmed as working ?
> (Don't want to download it if I don't have to ... )
Linux 2.2.6, jdk1.2pre-v1, glibc-2.1 (and 2.1.1pre1). Runs awt and
swing stuff. Noticeably slower than 117. Green_threads only. O
> For 1.1 you may want to back up to 116v5, or you can try 1.2pre-v1,
> but I've personally had no success with 1.1.7 and glibc2.1 either.
Has using glibc 2.1 with 1.2pre-v1 been confirmed as working ?
(Don't want to download it if I don't have to ... )
Tom McMic
Uncle George wrote:
> U just cant wait to bleed. Looks like 6.0 wont be released until may 10
>
RedHat 6.0 on FTP servers is available starting today actually
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Well I think the common problem with glibc 2.1 (2.1.1)
> is the error on excuting the java binary :
>
> ./../bin/i586/green_threads/java: error in loading shared libraries:
> ./../lib/i586/
> green_threads/libjava.so: undefined symbol: _dl_symbol_va
Pete Wyckoff wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > [..] It seems most messages about glibc 2.1
> > have gone unanswered ...
>
> Try posting a particular question, i.e. what's your error message? It
> works for me, but maybe we do different stuff.
>
>
U just cant wait to bleed. Looks like 6.0 wont be released until may 10
In reality 2.1 appears to be a tiger with a different set of stripes, and
personality. glibc cheating ( oops hacking ) will have to be redone/or
relearned !
gat
Tom McMichael wrote:
> fhave gone unanswered ... some h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there still a planned glibc 2.1 release of pre-v1?
>
> I hope this question hasn't been answered somewhere obvious, if it has, I
> apologize.
>
> Thanks for porting the jdk to linux, you've done an awesome job!
>
> -Mi
Hi,
Is there still a planned glibc 2.1 release of pre-v1?
I hope this question hasn't been answered somewhere obvious, if it has, I
apologize.
Thanks for porting the jdk to linux, you've done an awesome job!
-Mike
---
Hello,
Not sure if I missed a message on the mailing list but it seems no one
has
really addressed the issue of glibc 2.1 and the JVM 1.1.7 & JVM 1.2 ?
Would someone tell me what kind of trouble it would be to release a port
of 1.1.7 or 1.2 for use with glibc 2.1 ? and if efforts are unde
I have been a happy user of jdk 1.1.7 until I tried out redhat 5.9
(trying out
5.9 because of new hardware I just bought). My question: is a glib 2.1
version
of 1.1.7 going to be compiled ? I know most people are yelling for jdk
1.2
but I would think recompiling 1.1.7 wouldn't be too much of a
Dear Sirs,
I upgraded my redhat system to the starbuck (blah) distribution and
it seems that this broke java, maybe due to the new glibc (2.1.1), here is the
error:
/usr/local/java/bin/../bin/i686/green_threads/java: error in loading shared libraries:
/usr/local/java/bin/../lib/i686
On 11 Apr 1999, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > The response to the bugreport (id 430) was that a JDK-1.2 with support
> > for the glibc-2.1 would be uploaded within a few days. It was over a
> > month ago.
> > The solution was obviously not a trivial one. Could you please
>>>>> Johan writes:
Johan> On 11 Apr 1999, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> I'm running (thanks to the tips in this list!) jdk 1.2pre1 with glibc
>> 2.1. I'm using small wrapper scripts to set the required options,
>> e.g.:
>> $ cat
>>>>> Johan Sundström writes:
> Hi
> this is not a bugreport :). Still I'm having broblem to run the JDK-1.2
> pre-v1
> on a glibc-2.1 system. I found that someone has reported the same
> problem as
> I have and the mailinglist contains several po
Hi
this is not a bugreport :). Still I'm having broblem to run the JDK-1.2
pre-v1
on a glibc-2.1 system. I found that someone has reported the same
problem as
I have and the mailinglist contains several posts regarding glibc-2.1
and JDK-1.2.
The response to the bugreport (id 430) was that
Hi,
you find all informations about libc/glibc and how to upgrade here:
http://www.imaxx.net/~thrytis/glibc/index.old.html
Marcel
--
Marcel Ruff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.lake.de/home/lake/swand/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Hello:
I've just found out that the Blackdown port of the JDK does not work under
glibc 2.1.1, and that a supported version would be made available soon.
I am fairly desperate to get a supported version, and was wondering when
one might be made available. Also, is the JDK porting projec
1 - 100 of 187 matches
Mail list logo
