> On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 10:23:51PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> >
> >
> > The fact that `make` and `make test` do not produce any errors
> > means nothing! `make install` can (read will) destroy your
> > system. I don't know if the bug is in ld.so or in glib-c, but
> > with a new 'C' compiler, the generated code will have different
> > offsets which means that new and old libraries can't be mixed.
> > Somebody (not me) mixes them, the result being a disaster.
>
> I don't get it. Why would different offsets in the libraries make any
> difference to programs (or other libraries) ? Aren't they supposed to refer to
> nice symbol tables in libc etc?
>
> FWIW, I installed glibc-2.0.112 over glibc-2.0.111 over glibc 2.0.7pre6 without
> trouble. The only weird thing was that immediately after installing, you cannot
> execute any dynamically linked executables (which at least on a redhat system
> essentially means everything but ldconfig: su, login, even init) because the
> make install of glibc doesn't run ldconfig. This was a problem with the
> glibc-2.0.7pre6 to glibc 2.0.111 install (I think it changed ld.so to point
> somewhere else, but not the C libraries etc). But you run ldconfig, and
> everything's fine.
>
Well you installed glibc-2.0.112 over glibc-2.0.111 That's okay! They
have different version numbers. I installed glibc-2.0.7 over glibc-2.0.7
The new one was compiled with a different C compiler. Same version number
different code.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
Penguin : Linux version 2.2.1 on an i686 machine (400.59 BogoMips).
Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.
Wisdom : It's not a Y2K problem. It's a Y2Day problem.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/