Net Llama! wrote:
Well, then i must just be lucky, because I didn't need to go through any
of that ordeal. All I had to do was upgrade to the last glibc release
(late yesterday) and the problems created by the former (from early
yesterday) were solved. Granted, I'm using my own 2.4.22-xfs
Net Llama! wrote:
What last time? Let's not play revisionist historians, ok?
But there IS a history, dating back to April, see:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88456
and updating glibc to glibc-2.3.2-27.9.6 hosed my system, rendering it
unbootable.
For all co-victims
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Klaus-Peter Schrage wrote:
Net Llama! wrote:
What last time? Let's not play revisionist historians, ok?
But there IS a history, dating back to April, see:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88456
and updating glibc to glibc-2.3.2-27.9.6 hosed my
RH9 box is trashed as a result.
|
| [badly borken glibc]
|
| Whoops!
leave it to redhat. what was it last time? gcc-2.7.6 or something?
What last time? Let's not play revisionist historians, ok?
Indeed. GCC 2.96; glibc 2.0.7; NPTL; problems running RPM on kernel
2.5
Folks,
Since we've been talking about updates, I got this today from the Emperor
Linux folks, who installed RH on a couple of work laptops.
-Original Message-
Customers running Red Hat 9.0,
Red Hat has recently released a badly broken automatic update of GLIBC
and nptl onto
running Red Hat 9.0,
Red Hat has recently released a badly broken automatic update of GLIBC
and nptl onto their Red Hat Network (RHN) service. Please _DO_NOT_
download this update onto your system, nor any other associated
updates. We have received quite a few reports already from our
running Red Hat 9.0,
Red Hat has recently released a badly broken automatic update of GLIBC
and nptl onto their Red Hat Network (RHN) service. Please _DO_NOT_
download this update onto your system, nor any other associated
updates. We have received quite a few reports already from our
customers
this today from the Emperor
Linux folks, who installed RH on a couple of work laptops.
-Original Message-
Customers running Red Hat 9.0,
Red Hat has recently released a badly broken automatic update of GLIBC
and nptl onto their Red Hat Network (RHN) service. Please _DO_NOT_
download
Net Llama! wrote:
Redhat did re-release the packages about an hour ago. Fixed my problems
on RH9.
That's a pretty quick response. Kudos to 'em.
Michael
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -
Consuming 2.3K bytes, Net Llama! blathered:
I can vouch for this. My RH9 box is trashed as a result.
[badly borken glibc]
Whoops!
Kurt
--
Are you a turtle?
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://smtp.linux
quoth Kurt Wall:
| Consuming 2.3K bytes, Net Llama! blathered:
| I can vouch for this. My RH9 box is trashed as a result.
|
| [badly borken glibc]
|
| Whoops!
leave it to redhat. what was it last time? gcc-2.7.6 or something?
--
dep
Writing takes no time. It's finding something to say
On 11/13/03 17:04, dep wrote:
quoth Kurt Wall:
| Consuming 2.3K bytes, Net Llama! blathered:
| I can vouch for this. My RH9 box is trashed as a result.
|
| [badly borken glibc]
|
| Whoops!
leave it to redhat. what was it last time? gcc-2.7.6 or something?
What last time? Let's not play
Consuming 0.8K bytes, Net Llama! blathered:
On 11/13/03 17:04, dep wrote:
quoth Kurt Wall:
| Consuming 2.3K bytes, Net Llama! blathered:
| I can vouch for this. My RH9 box is trashed as a result.
|
| [badly borken glibc]
|
| Whoops!
leave it to redhat. what was it last time? gcc
borken glibc]
|
| Whoops!
leave it to redhat. what was it last time? gcc-2.7.6 or something?
What last time? Let's not play revisionist historians, ok?
Indeed. GCC 2.96; glibc 2.0.7; NPTL; problems running RPM on kernel
2.5. Shall I continue?
I actually had fairly good results
borken glibc]
|
| Whoops!
leave it to redhat. what was it last time? gcc-2.7.6 or something?
What last time? Let's not play revisionist historians, ok?
Indeed. GCC 2.96; glibc 2.0.7; NPTL; problems running RPM on kernel
2.5. Shall I continue?
I'm curious. Until last year I had
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
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
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
- much
of it from my linux box.
As for glibc, its relatively safe, but there's always a possibility
of
disaster. Ironically, just today, i completely wrecked a box that
was
running Redhat-6.2, where i tried to upgrade straight to glibc-2.2.5 (it
was runnning 2.1.2). But, most of that problem
be shoehorned into the system without
upgrading the entire library, I don't recommend doing so. An upgrade of
this sort is not for the faint of heart.
I am not at all sure that I (yet) need anything in the current glibc. I
have read the changelog and did not see anything I needed, but the writers
run into it. This is just one of those
forward looking issues that i've yet to experience. There are no backward
looking issues though.
As for glibc, its relatively safe, but there's always a possibility
of
disaster. Ironically, just today, i completely wrecked a box that
was
running Redhat
): the gentoo development team.
My last install (probably ever, except for experimentation) was about 2
1/2 years ago. Now my gentoo stable system is up to GCC 3.2.3 and glibc
2.3.2-r1 which is leading but not bleeding edge. During that time I've
seen at least four new releases of RH, Mandrake, SuSE, etc
gurus was saying loud and long that the e-build was defective. I
therefore took myself off to LSF and I have *really* enjoyed it - but I
admit that it now leaves me with this big problem of updating the gcc /
glibc core. It is not that I mind rebuilding LFS / BLFS itself, but the
hours of post
get gcc glibc upgraded and still be able to go about your
day to day activities, then you should be out of the woods. As Kurt
mentioned, at this time there aren't really many advantages to having
the latest greatest, other than having the latest greatest. So if
you aren't comfortable
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 16:21:22 +0100
Geoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I decided it was Gentoo or LFS and I actually
installed Gentoo first. I could see all the advantages, yet the very
convenience of e-builds again left me feeling that I was not fully in
control and would not learn as much as I
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 16:21:22 +0100
Geoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not that I mind rebuilding LFS / BLFS itself,
but the hours of post-installation fine-tuning will be a pain - I
should have kept better notes as I went along.
That's one of the strong points of gentoo. I started out
Hello,
In spite of 5 years in linux, I am new to sxs and to this ng. I found you
because I was Googling for information on upgrading gcc and glibc, and I
found the excellent guidance at http://www.opq.se/sxs/index2.html. I have
also just found a couple of posts on the topic here.
I run LFS 3.3
that easy. Its damn hard to wreck your box by
not building gcc right. As for glibc, its relatively safe, but there's
always a possibility of disaster. Ironically, just today, i completely
wrecked a box that was running Redhat-6.2, where i tried to upgrade
straight to glibc-2.2.5
Quoth Geoff:
[...]
I run LFS 3.3, which I installed last year (gcc 2.95.3 / glibc 2.2.5). My
system is very nicely sorted and up-to-date, except for the fact that gcc
and glibc have obviously moved on.
Yup.
Whenever I have looked into this topic in the past I have become lost
won'trun under glib 2.3.x, and it seems to be quite a hassle
to make it rununder the new glibc.
do you know why it won't run? i use wine occasionally, so this
might be an issue.
See
http://www.winehq.org/news/?view=155
Too bad this is a private server: Forbidden You don't have
as a result of
glibc-2.3.x.
Believe it or not: winehq.org totally reorganized their site just
yesterday, so the given link got lost.
Klaus
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo
Tim Wunder wrote:
FWIW, Red Hat Linux 9 will have 2.3.1
Now, Red Hat 8.0 already has 2.3.2 (-4.80) via up2date, which is a big
nuisance to the wine people (and me as a wine addict): wine simply won't
run under glib 2.3.x, and it seems to be quite a hassle to make it run
under the new glibc
to be quite a hassle to make it run
under the new glibc.
do you know why it won't run? i use wine occasionally, so this might be
an issue.
--
~~
Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Step-by-step
Net Llama! wrote:
Now, Red Hat 8.0 already has 2.3.2 (-4.80) via up2date, which is a big
nuisance to the wine people (and me as a wine addict): wine simply won't
run under glib 2.3.x, and it seems to be quite a hassle to make it run
under the new glibc.
do you know why it won't run? i use wine
a hassle
to make it rununder the new glibc.
do you know why it won't run? i use wine occasionally, so this
might be an issue.
See
http://www.winehq.org/news/?view=155
Too bad this is a private server: Forbidden You don't have permission
..
There have been more discussions
, and it seems to be quite a hassle
to make it rununder the new glibc.
do you know why it won't run? i use wine occasionally, so this
might be an issue.
See
http://www.winehq.org/news/?view=155
Too bad this is a private server: Forbidden You don't have permission
...
Oh, sorry - this one should work
I'm trying to figure out what the latest stable release of glibc is. I
see a 2.2.5 and i see a 2.3.1. According to the (g)libc website:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/
2.3.1 is the latest release, but they neglect to comment on whether its
considered to be a devel or stable release. anyone
On 3/24/2003 4:48 PM, someone claiming to be Net Llama! wrote:
I'm trying to figure out what the latest stable release of glibc is. I
see a 2.2.5 and i see a 2.3.1. According to the (g)libc website:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/
2.3.1 is the latest release, but they neglect to comment
and lived to tell the tale? is the procedure for building
2.3.x the same as the one for 2.2.x?
IHMO, changing glibc is just asking for trouble since almost everything on
the system depends on it. Only slightly less dangerous is updating the
Berkeley database libraries.
FWIW, Red Hat Linux 9
a box from a 2.2.x version to
a 2.3.x version and lived to tell the tale? is the procedure for building
2.3.x the same as the one for 2.2.x?
IHMO, changing glibc is just asking for trouble since almost everything on
the system depends on it. Only slightly less dangerous is updating
begin Net Llama!'s quote:
| ahhh...ok, thanks. so, has anyone upgraded a box from a 2.2.x
| version to a 2.3.x version and lived to tell the tale? is the
| procedure for building 2.3.x the same as the one for 2.2.x?
didn't suse 8.1 go to 2.3.0 or 2.3.1? whatever they went to, it broke
every
I second THAT !!! Downgraded to SuSe 8.0 after the system went
totally down
the toilet on SuSe 8.1 Same for Redhack 8.0 ..
dep wrote:
begin Net Llama!'s quote:
| ahhh...ok, thanks. so, has anyone upgraded a box from a 2.2.x
| version to a 2.3.x version and lived to tell the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- - Forwarded message from Ulrich Drepper [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:04:12 -0800
From: Ulrich Drepper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
To: GNU libc devel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: glibc 2.3.2
After several
What is the command to figure out which version of glibc your box thinks it
is running on?
Thanks,
Joel
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
ldconfig -v
On 02/25/03 17:54, Joel Hammer wrote:
What is the command to figure out which version of glibc your box thinks it
is running on?
--
~
L. Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Step-by-step
Thanks,
Joel
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 06:17:17PM -0800, Net Llama! wrote:
ldconfig -v
On 02/25/03 17:54, Joel Hammer wrote:
What is the command to figure out which version of glibc your box thinks it
is running
Feigning erudition, Joel Hammer wrote:
% What is the command to figure out which version of glibc your box thinks it
% is running on?
$ /lib/libc.so.6
GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.5, by Roland McGrath et al.
Copyright (C) 1992-2001, 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free
symlinks before buidling glibc?
my last trial (on a fresh-install COL 3.1) was a failure.I could't
compile a thing after the upgrade procedure.
Net Llama! wrote:
Backup /lib before you start. If it all goes to hell, make sure you
have something like Knoppix or the Linuxcare BBC ready so you
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, m.w.chang wrote:
in the last few days, I have seen someone mentioning a problem with
symlink to libcs.so.5 or something. does it mean an extra step to clear
all symlinks before buidling glibc?
my last trial (on a fresh-install COL 3.1) was a failure.I could't
it mean an extra step to clear
all symlinks before buidling glibc?
--
Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux We Trust.
news://news.hkpcug.org/ v \ http://www.linux-sxs.org
news://news.linux.org.hk /( _ )\ http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
^ ^ http
I did, and there was nothing wrong with the compilation process. just
that during make install, the libpthread had error. It was COL 3.1,
fresh-install (purely for testing the upgrade procedure). I would need
to try again this weekend to post the insatll error (hopefully, before
everyone forgot
in the last few days, I have seen someone mentioning a problem with
symlink to libcs.so.5 or something. does it mean an extra step to clear
all symlinks before buidling glibc?
my last trial (on a fresh-install COL 3.1) was a failure.I could't
compile a thing after the upgrade procedure.
Net
out how, when i was attempting to build glibc-2.2.5 last week,
parts of it got installed. I have no idea how, since the build bombed out
(ironically with a core dump) and i never even got as far as the 'make
install' phase
to build glibc-2.2.5 last week,
parts of it got installed. I have no idea how, since the build bombed out
(ironically with a core dump) and i never even got as far as the 'make
install' phase.
I was wondering whether this was the same box that you tried updating glibc on. I thought you got
to
figure out how, when i was attempting to build glibc-2.2.5 last week,
parts of it got installed. I have no idea how, since the build bombed out
(ironically with a core dump) and i never even got as far as the 'make
install' phase.
I was wondering whether this was the same box
before i did a make install.
I think i've figured out (part of) thje problem. Somehow, and i've yet to
figure out how, when i was attempting to build glibc-2.2.5 last week,
parts of it got installed. I have no idea how, since the build bombed out
(ironically with a core dump) and i never
On 11/25/2002 2:05 PM, someone claiming to be Net Llama! wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Tim Wunder wrote:
snip
Actually i've upgraded to glibc-2.2.5 on 3 of my boxes in teh past 2
weeks. This is the only one that blewup.
My recomendation? Punt.
Assuming your data is backed up. Reinstall the O
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:27:49 -0800
begin Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed forth:
On 11/15/2002 06:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:16:24AM -0500, Net Llama! wrote:
I'm trying to build glibc-2.2.5 from the pristine
:
I'm trying to build glibc-2.2.5 from the pristine source, and its
bombingabout 10 minutes in with the error:
exec: illegal option: -C
If something is invoking exec, perhaps it means exec -c. That said,
make accepts a -C option which might be buggering something up.
Well, i found this patch
I'm trying to build glibc-2.2.5 from the pristine source, and its bombing
about 10 minutes in with the error:
exec: illegal option: -C
Anyone have any ideas, or seen this before?
--
~~
Lonni J Friedman
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:16:24 -0500 (EST) Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm trying to build glibc-2.2.5 from the pristine source, and its bombing
about 10 minutes in with the error:
exec: illegal option: -C
Lonni, sorry, I haven't come across this one yet and I've compiled 2.2.5 a
lot
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Jerry McBride wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:16:24 -0500 (EST) Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm trying to build glibc-2.2.5 from the pristine source, and its bombing
about 10 minutes in with the error:
exec: illegal option: -C
Lonni, sorry, I haven't come
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:16:24AM -0500, Net Llama! wrote:
I'm trying to build glibc-2.2.5 from the pristine source, and its bombing
about 10 minutes in with the error:
exec: illegal option: -C
If something is invoking exec, perhaps it means exec -c. That said,
make accepts a -C option which
On 11/15/2002 06:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:16:24AM -0500, Net Llama! wrote:
I'm trying to build glibc-2.2.5 from the pristine source, and its bombing
about 10 minutes in with the error:
exec: illegal option: -C
If something is invoking exec, perhaps it means
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/glibc/glibc-2.3.1.tar.gz
- --
Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux
hmm.. Mr. Wonder, I think I would conclude that one could not update
glibc via rpm... the sanity check error will only go away if I compile
and install the glibc-2.2.5 from source couldn't someone confirm this?
is it possible to upgrade glibc via rpm?
btw, I noticed once-a-while
go a typo...
m.w.chang wrote:
hmm.. Mr. Wonder, I think I would conclude that one could not update
glibc via rpm... the sanity check error will only go away if I compile
unless I compile... not if I compile
and install the glibc-2.2.5 from source couldn't someone confirm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tim Wunder spewed electrons into the ether that resembled:
BTW2, are you doing things to the headers of mail messages that cause
Mozilla to be unable to thread things properly? I BCC myself on messages
I send from work (so I have sent mail copies
Tim, I finally compiled and installed the proftpd-1.2.6. The sanity
check is really relate to glibc. steps taken:
install COL 3.1 (minimum setup)
remvoe the old one and install my binutils-2.13
remove old gcc-2.95.2 and install my gcc-2.95.3.rpm --replacefiles
remove all caldera libstdc++.rpm
and, in fact, recompiles of glibc have seemed to work.
On 10/7/2002 1:46 AM, someone claiming to be m.w.chang wrote:
you meant after you installed glibc-2.2.5, your gcc-2.95.3 would no
longer compile a thing? hmm.. let me try it tonight. do you want me to
compile a specific package? If not, I would
confdefs.h
#include assert.h
Syntax error
configure:3754: error: C preprocessor /lib/cpp fails sanity check
I am now checking google.com for advices...hope it's not related to
glibc
Tim Wunder wrote:
Apps that I can't get to compile:
xfree86 - get a bunch of atexit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
m.w.chang spewed electrons into the ether that resembled:
you meant after you installed glibc-2.2.5, your gcc-2.95.3 would no
longer compile a thing? hmm.. let me try it tonight. do you want me to
compile a specific package? If not, I would just
On 10/7/2002 1:08 PM, someone claiming to be Douglas J Hunley wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tim Wunder spewed electrons into the ether that resembled:
Really?
My installation of glibc 2.2.5 seems to have rendered me incapable of
compiling *anything* on my Caldera
On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 00:39:57 -0400 Tim Wunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 06 October 2002 09:21 pm, m.w.chang wrote:
glibc-2.3 requires gcc-3.2 and gcc 3.2 is not backward comapatible to
older gcc stuffs, right? will it create chaos?
you have to use 'checkinstall make install
I just tried compiling glibc-2.2.5 from source using a dummy COL 3.1.
I noticed that on the first make install, the localedata was not
installed (as revealed by checkinstall).
also, the make install will always failed on libpthread, I must reboot
to run make install again to really finish
glibc-2.3 requires gcc-3.2 and gcc 3.2 is not backward comapatible to
older gcc stuffs, right? will it create chaos?
you have to use 'checkinstall make install localedata/install-locales'
and, BTW glibc-2.3 is out
so they are normal. I want to build an rpm and then I will install the
COL
you meant after you installed glibc-2.2.5, your gcc-2.95.3 would no
longer compile a thing? hmm.. let me try it tonight. do you want me to
compile a specific package? If not, I would just try proftpd-1.2.6.
COL 3.1 came with glibc-2.2.1.
My installation of glibc 2.2.5 seems to have rendered
note: prior to my test buiod of glibc-2.2.5 on the test server, I
upgraded her binutils to 2.13 and gcc to 2.95.3 via the rpms I
checkinstalled on the production server).
--
Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux we trust.
/ v \
news
and the binutils 2.13 was compiled by gcc-2.95.3
note: prior to my test buiod of glibc-2.2.5 on the test server, I
upgraded her binutils to 2.13 and gcc to 2.95.3 via the rpms I
checkinstalled on the production server).
--
Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux we trust
with will be prelink. At last
all those bloated C++ apps might start up a bit quicker..
Be a little cautious with the new glibc... I've seen a lot of cry-baby over
broken apps and shells (bash) when moving into version 2.30.
I'm going to sit back and wait a bit on this one, until at least it's all been
ironed
On Sat, 05 Oct 2002 00:37:12 -0400 Greg Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] (by way of
Douglas J Hunley[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2002-10/msg00048.html
Most interesting thing to play with will be
glibc-2.3 requires gcc-3.2. maybe that;s the resaon...
I am about to try my first glibc-2.2.5 compile.. hmm... got lots of
obstacles when I started to do things myself: sendmail, perl, sasl, ...
Be a little cautious with the new glibc... I've seen a lot of cry-baby over
broken apps
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
m.w.chang spewed electrons into the ether that resembled:
assumptions that's not applicable to amateurs like me. just the nail I
hit with sendmail from source related to smrsh -_-
I *still* don't understand why smrsh didn't work for you.
For a high resolution satellite photo of hurricane Lili go here:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/lili2045-10-02-02.jpg
What a storm..
Best
Peck
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93.
http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest glibc is 2.2.5.
RedHat 7.3 shipped with glibc-2.2.5.
Should I care that RedHat is shipping a non-standard glibc (if that's
what they're doing)?
Regards,
Tim
Well it wouldn't be the first time RH has done something like this (think
7.0 and the gcc fiasco). Is there any info anywhere on what this 2.2.93
really is?
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Tim Wunder wrote:
RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93.
http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest
Tim Wunder wrote:
RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93.
http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest glibc is 2.2.5.
RedHat 7.3 shipped with glibc-2.2.5.
Should I care that RedHat is shipping a non-standard glibc (if that's
what they're doing)?
Regards,
Tim
Believe
Other than it's a snapshot of the development version, currently at
2.2.94, beats me. I cannot find what it will become when it's released.
2.3.0? 2.4.0? Anybody know?
I would've thought that the development version of glibc would be 2.3.x,
isn't that the way the gnu folks do things
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Lee wrote:
Tim Wunder wrote:
RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93.
http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest glibc is 2.2.5.
RedHat 7.3 shipped with glibc-2.2.5.
Should I care that RedHat is shipping a non-standard glibc (if that's
what they're
Some of you may remember that my updating glibc to 2.2.4, then 2.2.5, on
my Caldera eWorkstation 3.1 system has caused me a little grief. Most
centering around an error involving an undefined reference to atexit
when compiling and/or configuring source code.
Well, while reading up on WTF
binutils-2.11.90 seems to work just fine for me.
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Tim Wunder wrote:
Some of you may remember that my updating glibc to 2.2.4, then 2.2.5, on
my Caldera eWorkstation 3.1 system has caused me a little grief. Most
centering around an error involving an undefined reference
Well, according to:
ftp://ftp.uni-kl.de/pub/linux/redhat/redhat/8.0/en/os/i386/RedHat/RPMS/
If you scroll down you will see gcc-3.2 and glibc 2.2.93. I hope that they
didn't use a devel snapshot of glibc. I don't use RH and I'm not on any of
the RH mailing lists. Anybody hear anything about
Here are details :
http://rpmfind.net/linux/redhat/8.0/en/os/i386/RELEASE-NOTES
Patrick
--- Tim Wunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93.
http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest
glibc is 2.2.5.
RedHat 7.3 shipped with glibc-2.2.5.
Should
On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 11:54:36 -0400 Tim Wunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of you may remember that my updating glibc to 2.2.4, then 2.2.5,
---snip---
Based on the FAQ's answer of Investigate why the linker does not pick
up libc_nonshared.a..., I'm thinking now that binutils may
to (and will replace) the existing
--redhatprovides mechanism.
patrick Kapturkiewicz wrote:
Here are details :
http://rpmfind.net/linux/redhat/8.0/en/os/i386/RELEASE-NOTES
Patrick
--- Tim Wunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93.
http://www.gnu.org
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
