Yes, but i followed its development till now, and those file are still
present, belive me, when i do compile latest versions.
I am doing beta test of it when i have time,
and i think i tried all versions from 2.7 times, sometimes sending bug
reports.
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
Yes, but i followed its development till now, and those file are still
present, belive me, when i do compile latest versions.
I am doing beta test of it when i have time,
and i think i tried all versions from 2.7 times, sometimes sending bug
reports.
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> The point was that Stimits says that on its Red Hat 7.1 he has no
> ldscripts directory, and so no files like elf_i386.x and so on.
> I was just surprised, since i know thay are all necessary to /usr/bin/ld
> to work.
> two libc
> /lib/libc.so.6 and /lib/i686/libc.so.6, one is tripped and the
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > glad to know this, i do wonder how does /usr/bin/ld work for red hat.
> > to my old mentality this seems red hat is going out of any resonable
> > standard.
>
> It works like /usr/bin/ld on any other platform I know of
>
> > if the same libc stripped would not run
The point was that Stimits says that on its Red Hat 7.1 he has no
ldscripts directory, and so no files like elf_i386.x and so on.
I was just surprised, since i know thay are all necessary to /usr/bin/ld
to work.
Then he was alo wondering why he has
two libc
/lib/libc.so.6 and
> glad to know this, i do wonder how does /usr/bin/ld work for red hat.
> to my old mentality this seems red hat is going out of any resonable
> standard.
It works like /usr/bin/ld on any other platform I know of
> if the same libc stripped would not run library, and they HAVE to mantein
> a
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, D. Stimits wrote:
> > > The RH 7.1 comes with:
> > > :~# ld --version
> > > GNU ld 2.10.91
> > > Copyright 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > > This program is free software; you may redistribute it under the terms
> > > of
> > > the GNU General Public License. This
Luigi Genoni wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, D. Stimits wrote:
>
> > Luigi Genoni wrote:
> > >
> > > Again i am confused.
> > >
> > > /usr/bin/ld is linker at compilation time, at it works how i told in
> > > second part
> > > of my mail, (just try to compile it, it comes with binutils,
> > >
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, D. Stimits wrote:
> Luigi Genoni wrote:
> >
> > Again i am confused.
> >
> > /usr/bin/ld is linker at compilation time, at it works how i told in
> > second part
> > of my mail, (just try to compile it, it comes with binutils,
> > ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils).
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, D. Stimits wrote:
Luigi Genoni wrote:
Again i am confused.
/usr/bin/ld is linker at compilation time, at it works how i told in
second part
of my mail, (just try to compile it, it comes with binutils,
ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils).
Luigi Genoni wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, D. Stimits wrote:
Luigi Genoni wrote:
Again i am confused.
/usr/bin/ld is linker at compilation time, at it works how i told in
second part
of my mail, (just try to compile it, it comes with binutils,
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, D. Stimits wrote:
The RH 7.1 comes with:
:~# ld --version
GNU ld 2.10.91
Copyright 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This program is free software; you may redistribute it under the terms
of
the GNU General Public License. This program has absolutely
Alan Cox wrote:
glad to know this, i do wonder how does /usr/bin/ld work for red hat.
to my old mentality this seems red hat is going out of any resonable
standard.
It works like /usr/bin/ld on any other platform I know of
if the same libc stripped would not run library, and they
glad to know this, i do wonder how does /usr/bin/ld work for red hat.
to my old mentality this seems red hat is going out of any resonable
standard.
It works like /usr/bin/ld on any other platform I know of
if the same libc stripped would not run library, and they HAVE to mantein
a
The point was that Stimits says that on its Red Hat 7.1 he has no
ldscripts directory, and so no files like elf_i386.x and so on.
I was just surprised, since i know thay are all necessary to /usr/bin/ld
to work.
Then he was alo wondering why he has
two libc
/lib/libc.so.6 and
The point was that Stimits says that on its Red Hat 7.1 he has no
ldscripts directory, and so no files like elf_i386.x and so on.
I was just surprised, since i know thay are all necessary to /usr/bin/ld
to work.
two libc
/lib/libc.so.6 and /lib/i686/libc.so.6, one is tripped and the other
Luigi Genoni wrote:
>
> Again i am confused.
>
> /usr/bin/ld is linker at compilation time, at it works how i told in
> second part
> of my mail, (just try to compile it, it comes with binutils,
> ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils).
>
> /lib/d-2.2.X.so is what you are talking about.
>
Again i am confused.
/usr/bin/ld is linker at compilation time, at it works how i told in
second part
of my mail, (just try to compile it, it comes with binutils,
ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils).
/lib/d-2.2.X.so is what you are talking about.
So should i think os an hack to
Luigi Genoni wrote:
>
> I do not know if this is a new filesystem hierarchy, it should not be,
> at less untill lsb finishes all discussion (anyway it is similar to lsb
> standard). Your mail is a little confusing for me. Let's see if i can
> clarify my ideas.
>
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, D.
I do not know if this is a new filesystem hierarchy, it should not be,
at less untill lsb finishes all discussion (anyway it is similar to lsb
standard). Your mail is a little confusing for me. Let's see if i can
clarify my ideas.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, D. Stimits wrote:
> I found on my newer
I do not know if this is a new filesystem hierarchy, it should not be,
at less untill lsb finishes all discussion (anyway it is similar to lsb
standard). Your mail is a little confusing for me. Let's see if i can
clarify my ideas.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, D. Stimits wrote:
I found on my newer
Luigi Genoni wrote:
I do not know if this is a new filesystem hierarchy, it should not be,
at less untill lsb finishes all discussion (anyway it is similar to lsb
standard). Your mail is a little confusing for me. Let's see if i can
clarify my ideas.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, D. Stimits
Again i am confused.
/usr/bin/ld is linker at compilation time, at it works how i told in
second part
of my mail, (just try to compile it, it comes with binutils,
ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils).
/lib/d-2.2.X.so is what you are talking about.
So should i think os an hack to
Luigi Genoni wrote:
Again i am confused.
/usr/bin/ld is linker at compilation time, at it works how i told in
second part
of my mail, (just try to compile it, it comes with binutils,
ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils).
/lib/d-2.2.X.so is what you are talking about.
So should i
I found on my newer Redhat 7.1 distribution that glibc is being placed
differently than just /lib/. Here is the structure I found:
/lib/ has:
libc-2.2.2.so (hard link)
libc.so.6 (sym link to above)
A new directory appears, /lib/i686/ (uname -m is i686):
libc-2.2.2.so (a full hard link copy
I found on my newer Redhat 7.1 distribution that glibc is being placed
differently than just /lib/. Here is the structure I found:
/lib/ has:
libc-2.2.2.so (hard link)
libc.so.6 (sym link to above)
A new directory appears, /lib/i686/ (uname -m is i686):
libc-2.2.2.so (a full hard link copy
26 matches
Mail list logo
