Re: glibc-compat ???
On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 05:34:20PM +0100, Robert Varga wrote: > > > On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Steve Greenland wrote: > > > However I don't really like 8i, since it needs much more (and it should be > written as MUCH MORE) resources than 8.0.5. I know there is one aspect of > using 8i on linux when compared with 8.0.5, its being free for development > purposes. > > Robert I totaly agree with Robert. 8i is a memory hog and need X to be installed. I have RH compat packeges installed but I think having native packages is better. Or lets start persuading Oracle to release simpler Oracle version with glibc 2.1 ;-) -- Sincerely yours, Konstantin Kivi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: glibc-compat
On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 11:04:36AM +, Jose Marin wrote: > I originated this whole thread in debian-user; the app that does not work > for me is the F compiler from Imagine1 (www.uni-comp.com/imagine1). It's > a free (as in beer) commercial compiler, which has been recently made > available in its full version. The errors appear in the linking stage, it > seems the run-time library (libf90.a) needs glibc2.0. People with > glibc2.1 under RedHat or Suse can run it successfully by installing > compat-glibc-5.2-2.0.7.1.i386.rpm, and then using > -L/usr/i386-glibc20-linux/lib on the compile command line. Well, the compiler binary itself works, right? You should be able to use the same solution, by using alien to install the rpm, and using the -L argument to the compiler. -- #define X(x,y) x##y DUPS Secretary ; http://is2.dal.ca/~dups/ Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X([EMAIL PROTECTED] , dal.ca) "The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours! Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack my day so wretchedly into small pieces!" -- Plautus, 200 BCE
Re: glibc-compat ???
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 23-Mar-00, 18:08 (CST), Andor Dirner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Robert Varga wrote: > > > > > > The other one it breaks is Oracle 8.0, and one needs to convert Redhat > > > compatibility libraries to be able install it, and a patch from Oracle. > > > > > FWIW, I'm running Oracle 8i (SQL*Plus reports v 8.1.5) with the latest > patches (as of a month ago) on a potato box with no obvious problems, I > don't have any compatibility libs installed. > I said 8.0. I know 8.1.5 works with glibc2.1 since it is explicitly stated in its requirements that it needs it. Of course it should work with it. However I don't really like 8i, since it needs much more (and it should be written as MUCH MORE) resources than 8.0.5. I know there is one aspect of using 8i on linux when compared with 8.0.5, its being free for development purposes. Robert
Re: glibc-compat
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Peter Cordes wrote: > Is it possible to run stuff that is linked against glibc-2.0.7 (rh5.2 used > that, so I imagine a lot of commercial stuff linked against that, or at > least people have old commercial stuff linked against it and would rather > not pay for a new version.) > > Can you LD_PRELOAD (an old) libc? (with a wrapper script to set LD_PRELOAD.) > > Is there a way to do it at all without using chroot or hacking ld.so for > special cases? Obviously it is possible, but is it possible practically and > usefully? Hi all, I'd like to know this as well! Yes, I know, the correct thing to do is to ask politely the vendor to re-compile under glibc2.1, and I plan to do that. But at the same time I'd like to know if there's a quick fix for this. I originated this whole thread in debian-user; the app that does not work for me is the F compiler from Imagine1 (www.uni-comp.com/imagine1). It's a free (as in beer) commercial compiler, which has been recently made available in its full version. The errors appear in the linking stage, it seems the run-time library (libf90.a) needs glibc2.0. People with glibc2.1 under RedHat or Suse can run it successfully by installing compat-glibc-5.2-2.0.7.1.i386.rpm, and then using -L/usr/i386-glibc20-linux/lib on the compile command line. TIA, Jose
Re: glibc-compat ???
On 23-Mar-00, 18:08 (CST), Andor Dirner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Robert Varga wrote: > > > > The other one it breaks is Oracle 8.0, and one needs to convert Redhat > > compatibility libraries to be able install it, and a patch from Oracle. > > FWIW, I'm running Oracle 8i (SQL*Plus reports v 8.1.5) with the latest patches (as of a month ago) on a potato box with no obvious problems, I don't have any compatibility libs installed. steve -- Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read every list I post to.)
Re: glibc-compat and upgrading from Slink to Potato using dselect's FTP method.
Hello all I'm near from upgrading my Slink to Potato using dselect's FTP, but I'm afraid if it can drive my system _really_ bad (broken). I tried it six months ago, and the result was a reinstalling Slink from CDs. Did anyone try this way? Worked fine? Taupter
Re: glibc-compat ???
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Robert Varga wrote: > > > On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Eric Weigel wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote: > > > > Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs. > > > > Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros > > > > have? > > > > > > They're both libc 6.0 -- how would ld.so know which one you wanted? > > > Any apps which run on 6.0 and not 6.1 are broken and should be fixed. > > > > > > Some things changed from 2.0 to 2.1 so that non broken binaries won't > > work. One I know about is stat, which is now a macro instead of a > > function call (breaks smbsh, even if you recompile it) > > > > Some other software doesn't work either. One I know about is IBM DB2 > > database. I don't know why it doesn't work, it just doesn't, and of > > course I don't have the source. > > > > I've thought about compatibility links, but like you said, they're both > > libc 6.0. > > > > Overall though, there doesn't seem to be a lot of broken stuff. > > > > The other one it breaks is Oracle 8.0, and one needs to convert Redhat > compatibility libraries to be able install it, and a patch from Oracle. > > I have heard it also broke Applixware, but I am not sure. > > Robert Varga > Applixware is absolutely ok. I personally run Applixware 4.4.2 on my home Potato box, on another Potato and a redhat 5.1 at the company, all of them work without any compat-packages. (Also true for Applixware 5.00M - a pre-release beta) --andor dirner Free science and free software are just two aspects of the same complex reality: long-term human survival. Support humankind, use Linux.
Re: glibc-compat
> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:33:29 +1100 > From: Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: glibc-compat ??? > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote: > > Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs. > > Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros > > have? > > They're both libc 6.0 -- how would ld.so know which one you wanted? > Any apps which run on 6.0 and not 6.1 are broken and should be fixed. Is it possible to run stuff that is linked against glibc-2.0.7 (rh5.2 used that, so I imagine a lot of commercial stuff linked against that, or at least people have old commercial stuff linked against it and would rather not pay for a new version.) Can you LD_PRELOAD (an old) libc? (with a wrapper script to set LD_PRELOAD.) Is there a way to do it at all without using chroot or hacking ld.so for special cases? Obviously it is possible, but is it possible practically and usefully? -- #define X(x,y) x##y DUPS Secretary ; http://is2.dal.ca/~dups/ Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X([EMAIL PROTECTED] , dal.ca) "The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours! Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack my day so wretchedly into small pieces!" -- Plautus, 200 BCE
Re: glibc-compat ???
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Eric Weigel wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote: > > > Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs. > > > Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros > > > have? > > > > They're both libc 6.0 -- how would ld.so know which one you wanted? > > Any apps which run on 6.0 and not 6.1 are broken and should be fixed. > > > Some things changed from 2.0 to 2.1 so that non broken binaries won't > work. One I know about is stat, which is now a macro instead of a > function call (breaks smbsh, even if you recompile it) > > Some other software doesn't work either. One I know about is IBM DB2 > database. I don't know why it doesn't work, it just doesn't, and of > course I don't have the source. > > I've thought about compatibility links, but like you said, they're both > libc 6.0. > > Overall though, there doesn't seem to be a lot of broken stuff. > The other one it breaks is Oracle 8.0, and one needs to convert Redhat compatibility libraries to be able install it, and a patch from Oracle. I have heard it also broke Applixware, but I am not sure. Robert Varga
Re: glibc-compat ???
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 12:09:23PM -0500 , Eric Weigel wrote:
> I've thought about compatibility links, but like you said, they're both
> libc 6.0.
LD_PRELOAD
> Overall though, there doesn't seem to be a lot of broken stuff.
A friend is bitching about broken aplix(sp?). Thing is, it works on RH6.1
and SuSE 6.3 , both glibc-2.1
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: glibc-compat ???
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote: > > Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs. > > Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros > > have? > > They're both libc 6.0 -- how would ld.so know which one you wanted? > Any apps which run on 6.0 and not 6.1 are broken and should be fixed. Some things changed from 2.0 to 2.1 so that non broken binaries won't work. One I know about is stat, which is now a macro instead of a function call (breaks smbsh, even if you recompile it) Some other software doesn't work either. One I know about is IBM DB2 database. I don't know why it doesn't work, it just doesn't, and of course I don't have the source. I've thought about compatibility links, but like you said, they're both libc 6.0. Overall though, there doesn't seem to be a lot of broken stuff. -- precision of expression is more important than conformance to traditional rules
Re: glibc-compat ???
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote: > Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs. > Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros > have? They're both libc 6.0 -- how would ld.so know which one you wanted? Any apps which run on 6.0 and not 6.1 are broken and should be fixed. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: glibc-compat ???
> > It seems we don't have such "compatibility" packages for Debian; > > what am I missing? Could one install slink's glibc2.0 in a > > non-obstrusive way under potato or woody? > > Maybe you could use alien and install the rpm? I thing potato and > woody is totally commited to 2.1 > Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs. Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros have? I'm CC'ing this post to debian-devel (the right place to talk about this issue). Taupter
