Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:18:45 -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: <20001114081845.A76050@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20001113153325.D39667@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@FreeBSD.org on Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:33:25PM -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> <20001113153325.D39667@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Satoshi, Not sure if you saw this message. The more I think about it, I'm not sure bumping the shared libc version will accomplish anything other than require a compat4x distribution for 4.2-RELEASE. For the 4.0R upgrade kit you'd just have to include a libc.so.5, and that would mismatch the kernel as bad as the libc.so.4 that is currently included. -- David On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:33:25PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > 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. 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?20001114081845.A76050>