From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Jul 22 03:36:37 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id DAA01193 for questions-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 03:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from meno.uchicago.edu (meno.uchicago.edu [128.135.21.34]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA01188 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 03:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from meno.uchicago.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by meno.uchicago.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA14157; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 05:38:46 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199607221038.FAA14157@meno.uchicago.edu> To: Ron Echeverri cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rcmd: socket: Protocol not available In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 22 Jul 1996 03:09:27 PDT." <199607221009.DAA12174@bofh.noc.best.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <14153.838031925.1@meno.uchicago.edu> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 05:38:46 -0500 From: steve farrell Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >steve farrell writes: > >bofh# mv libc.so.3.0 libc.so.3.0.disabled > >bofh# ln -s libc.so.2.2 libc.so.3.0 > > >And Bingo was his name. Do you expect that my linking 3.0 to 2.2 will > >cause any problems? (jeez, that sounds like a dumb question, but what > >the heck...) > > yeah, it probably will. don't know much about the differences between > 2.2 and 3 (or else i probably wouldn't have made the same mistake =). > if you're running 2.1.x, probably best to make sure all your binaries > are linked against libc.so.2.2.0 and leave it at that. just get the > binary distribution for 2.1.5 and run the install.sh script. > >Hmm, can't find what you mean by the install.sh script. Where would i >find it? I already have the binary distribution for 2.1.5... Or, is >there another way to relink the binaries from 3.0 to 2.2 (besides >remaking the whole bin distribution)? well, if you grab all the files in, for exmaple: wcarchive.cdrom.com:/.16/FreeBSD/2.1.5-RELEASE/bin i see: CHECKSUM.MD5 bin.ao bin.bd bin.bs bin.ch bin.aa bin.ap bin.be bin.bt bin.ci bin.ab bin.aq bin.bf bin.bu bin.cj bin.ac bin.ar bin.bg bin.bv bin.ck bin.ad bin.as bin.bh bin.bw bin.cl bin.ae bin.at bin.bi bin.bx bin.cm bin.af bin.au bin.bj bin.by bin.cn bin.ag bin.av bin.bk bin.bz bin.co bin.ah bin.aw bin.bl bin.ca bin.cp bin.ai bin.ax bin.bm bin.cb bin.cq bin.aj bin.ay bin.bn bin.cc bin.inf bin.ak bin.az bin.bo bin.cd bin.mtree bin.al bin.ba bin.bp bin.ce ,--> install.sh* bin.am bin.bb bin.bq bin.cf / bin.an bin.bc bin.br bin.cg / / / and that one over -----------------------------------' would be the case in point. =).. not meant to be condescending, just bored and having fun drawing arrows! on a more thoughtful note, i really don't know if you can 'relink' files. someone more knowledgeable than me, however, might know. have you had any problems linking 3.0 to 2.2? that seemed like it was worth experimenting with, since it would allow you to continue to migrate binaries back and forth. not sure if it would have the desired effect of new builds treating 3.0 as if it were not there and linking against 2.2. -steve