On Tuesday 21 October 2003 06:09 pm, Kurt Wall wrote:
Quoth Tony Alfrey:
Yes, I read the SXS. My principle question is . . .
if I have applications complied earlier against glibc-2.2.1 and I
install glibc-2.2.4, will the applications now crash?
No. Going the other way -- apps compiled
Quoth Tony Alfrey:
Yes, I read the SXS. My principle question is . . .
if I have applications complied earlier against glibc-2.2.1 and I
install glibc-2.2.4, will the applications now crash?
No. Going the other way -- apps compiled against 2.2.4 running on
a 2.2.1 system -- might not run,
Hi;
I've got an app that wants libc.so.6 (which I have) but it tells me that
it wants the version from glibc-2.2.4, while I have something a little
older, like glibc-2.2.1. glibc-2.2.4 and all its parts is a big thing
(maybe over 10 MB) and I seem to remember from the list that upgrading
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Tony Alfrey wrote:
Hi;
I've got an app that wants libc.so.6 (which I have) but it tells me that
it wants the version from glibc-2.2.4, while I have something a little
older, like glibc-2.2.1. glibc-2.2.4 and all its parts is a big thing
(maybe over 10 MB) and I seem to
On Monday 20 October 2003 05:03 am, Net Llama! wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Tony Alfrey wrote:
Hi;
I've got an app that wants libc.so.6 (which I have) but it tells me
that it wants the version from glibc-2.2.4, while I have something
a little older, like glibc-2.2.1. glibc-2.2.4 and all
On Monday 20 October 2003 07:31 am, Net Llama! wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Tony Alfrey wrote:
snip
Yes, I read the SXS. My principle question is . . .
if I have applications complied earlier against glibc-2.2.1 and I
install glibc-2.2.4, will the applications now crash?
No. You're not
Net Llama! wrote:
No. You're not removing glibc-2.2.1, you're just adding glibc-2.2.4.
Have you tried the old symlink trick?
--
Leon A. Goldstein
Powered by Libranet 2.8 Debian Linux
System G2
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Leon Goldstein wrote:
Net Llama! wrote:
No. You're not removing glibc-2.2.1, you're just adding glibc-2.2.4.
Have you tried the old symlink trick?
Which trick is that?
--
~~
Lonni J Friedman