From owner-freebsd-questions Wed May 21 03:56:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA03884 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 03:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from florence.pavilion.net (mailrelay1.pavilion.net [194.242.128.25]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA03879 for ; Wed, 21 May 1997 03:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from joe@localhost) by florence.pavilion.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA29252; Wed, 21 May 1997 11:56:03 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <19970521115603.61894@pavilion.net> Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 11:56:03 +0100 From: Josef Karthauser To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: libc.2.2 vs libc.3.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.69 Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I've finally got around to putting RELENG_2_2 on one of our production machines, now that 2.2.2 is out and I've got a library question that hopefully someone can answer. When I do a make world on top of a 2.1.7.1 release I get the new libraries in /usr/lib. This leaves multiple versions kicking around that I'd like to remove for the sake of cleanliness. Is there an established way to do this, or do I just delete them by hand? Assuming that I should delete them by hand I moved the old libraries out into another directory and did a ldconfig, and another make world. For some reason even though I have a new libc.so.3.0 the systems still seems to need libc.so.2.2. (i.e. when I log in it complains that it can't). Why should this be so? Shouldn't getty, etc, be linked against 3.0? Another question also: make install? Is there a make install that doesn't reinstall the entire system. I'd like to install just those binaries that have changed, and not the whole whack after performing a cvsup/make all. Looking forward to some hot tips, Joe -- Josef Karthauser Technical Manager Email: joe@pavilion.net Pavilion Internet plc. [Tel: +44 1273 607072 Fax: +44 1273 607073]