> >Its c code, so I don't think the version of gcc is that
> important, what
> >matters is the GLIBC_2.3 symbol, it doesn't show up in the X driver,
> >because it isn't linked against libc, however, the dri portion is.
> >
> >For some bizzare reason, redhat has decided to put a cvs version of
> >glibc in their upcoming distro release, which you are aparently
> >compiling against, the current release version of glibc is
> 2.2.5, more
> >than 90% of users are probably using this version.
>
> This still doesn't make sense to me. So isn't glic-2.3 backwards
> compatible? I've been using quite alot of RHL 7.2 compiled
> programs with
> the new version and had no problems whatsoever. So why do the DRI
> drivers require specifically version 2.3? Perhaps this is a
> pickyness of
> XFree86 module loader.
as far as i understood, backwards compatibility means that you can
run old programs with the bleeding edge glibc.
but vice versa, brand new programs wont run on old glibc systems
(including an XFree86 loader that only knows about old glibc).
if there is a new symbol in new modules that does not resolve
on old XF86 systems then it wont run.
Maybe there is a way of just "stripping" that single symbol
and all runs fine then. Its just a wild guess.
For my expirience i only tested "old" modules on new red hat
and had no problems with them, so the approch of Jose with the
chroot and some previous glibc version will do the job.
-Alex.
