Re: glibc 2.1 binary

1999-05-05 Thread Scott Murray
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

Re: glibc 2.1 binary

1999-05-04 Thread Steve Byrne
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 of jdk117_v2 available at ... > > > > http://

Re: glibc 2.1 binary

1999-04-28 Thread Juergen Kreileder
> 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

Re: glibc 2.1 binary

1999-04-27 Thread Scott Murray
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/~kreilede/ > > I'm downloading it rig

Re: glibc 2.1 binary

1999-04-27 Thread Tom McMichael
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 2.1 > Read JitterBug for detail. > It

Re: glibc 2.1 binary

1999-04-27 Thread Paul Ho
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 2.1) Paul -

Re: glibc 2.1 binary

1999-04-27 Thread Paul Ho
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 that a month old alrea

Re: glibc 2.1 binary

1999-04-27 Thread Tom McMichael
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/ > > green_threads/libjava.so: undefined symbol: _

Re: glibc 2.1 binary

1999-04-26 Thread Pete Wyckoff
[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. Odd font problems (see

Re: glibc 2.1 binary

1999-04-26 Thread Tom McMichael
> 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 McMichael [EMAIL PROTECTED] --

Re: glibc 2.1 binary

1999-04-26 Thread Tom McMichael
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

Re: glibc 2.1 binary

1999-04-26 Thread Pete Wyckoff
[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_value > > I'm using Red

Re: glibc 2.1 binary

1999-04-26 Thread Tom McMichael
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. > > -- Pete Well I think the com

Re: glibc 2.1 binary

1999-04-26 Thread Uncle George
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 have sai

Re: glibc 2.1 binary

1999-04-26 Thread Tom McMichael
[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! > > -Mike > If there has been an answer to the

glibc 2.1 binary

1999-04-26 Thread fertig
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 -- To UNS