Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:33:25 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@freebsd.org> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libc shlib version Message-ID: <20001113153325.D39667@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <vqc8zqnmqkb.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>; from asami@freebsd.org on Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 02:53:56PM -0800 References: <31309.974061923@winston.osd.bsdi.com> <200011130413.eAD4DKj41211@vashon.polstra.com> <vqcd7g09vtq.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <200011131727.eADHR8c42388@vashon.polstra.com> <vqc8zqnmqkb.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 02:53:56PM -0800, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
> * Thinking about this some more ... does the upgrade kit contain a new
> * libc? It's hard for me to see how these errors could happen if it
> * didn't.
>
> Yes it does.
How did you get the included libc.so.4? If you just took a -stable one
that could easily be the problem. The most correct way would be to take
a 4.0-R machine w/src (or at least source and a chrooted build
environment) and only update the libc sources and build libc.so.4 that
way.
> moved stuff from libxpg4 to libc without changing the version numbers.
Correct, by today's shared lib version rules, it was not required.
> I really wish we could keep the two version numbers from a.out, so I
> don't have to worry about stuff like this. :<
You can get shot around here (not by me) for just saying that. ;-)
--
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001113153325.D39667>