>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Apr 8 16:14:58 2000
>> >Glibc 2.1 is back compatible to 2.0 but not vice versa
>>
>> As binaries frum SuSE fail on Redhat and vice versa, this statement
>> is most likely not true.
>I am not seeing problems here although mostly I mix Debian and RH apps. Both
>of them seem totally interworking. Is your SuSE glibc 2.0 or 2.1 ?
shaky joerg 2 > l libc*6* libc*2*
ls: libc*2*: No such file or directory
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2475225 Apr 4 1999 libc.so.6
shaky joerg 2 > nm libc.so.6|p
00097a40 r .LTRAMP0
0009bb50 d LogFacility
0009bb44 d LogFile
0009bb54 d LogMask
0009bb48 d LogStat
0009bb4c d LogTag
0009bb40 d LogType
000a8f1c b SyslogAddr
000a0048 A _DYNAMIC
0009f320 A _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_
0003f490 T _IO_adjust_column
0003f600 T _IO_cleanup
So I would guess that it is a libc 2.0 .....
Unfortunately, there is no other signature in it.
J�rg
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
