[techtalk] Glibc

[Shannon Wells]

Be sure you read the FAQ carefully, in order to figure out how to make
your compiler use glibc2.

I've done this upgrade on a RH5.2 system.  It was a PITA.  You might also 
have to upgrade a whole bunch of other things, like make, egcs, etc.
As I say, read the FAQ thoroughly.   

> Excerpts from linuxchix: 13-Oct-99 [techtalk] Glibc by Just This Girl at gte.net 
> > I installed Slackware 4.0, then I upgraded my kernel from 2.2.6 to
> > 2.2.12.
> >  
> > What am I going to break if I install glibc2?
> 
> Nothing, if you do everything right, and if your system is set up such
> that you are able to do everything right.  Almost everything, if you
> mess up.
> 
> Anything linked against libc5, which is probably almost every program,
> will break if you get rid of libc5.  The key is to not get rid of
> anything from libc5 (this is nontrivial, since /lib/libc.so.5 is not the
> only library from libc5 :)), while putting libc6 (aka glibc2), in the
> right place.  A lot of distributions include libc5 in addition to libc6,
> so it is possible.
>   
> You probably want to read the Glibc2 HOWTO, though this is probably
> slightly out of date wrt version numbers, etc.
> 
> > I am finding that several programs I would like to use, like StarOffice,
> > require glibc2, but claim that I do not have such.
> 
> That's annoying.  If it were open source, you could get someone to
> compile it statically linked for you...

You mean it's not?  Bleah.

Does anyone else get annoyed with the prevalence of dynamically linked
packages these days (which don't ship the libraries required)?  I didn't 
want to upgrade to RH6, so getting enlightenment even to compile was a 
severe pain, because I have a wonky system setup. Not everything goes in 
its expected directories, so rpm complains, and not all packages are 
relocatable.  ugh.  cascading dependencies are going to be the bane of
my existence.   (suggestions accepted)

Shannon

************
techtalk at linuxchix.org   http://www.linuxchix.org