On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 1:21 PM, wrote:
>>> Perhaps, but I’m running CentOS 6.6 i686 (i.e., 32-bit), and it appears
>>> that Docker requires 64-bit. Oh well, I was getting my hopes up for a
> while.
>
> I haven't really been following this thread closely, but would it be a
> dumb question
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Alfred von Campe
> wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 2015, at 12:21, Jim Perrin wrote:
>>
Isn't this the problem that docker was invented to solve?
>>>
>>> Yes, you could address this with docker quite easily, depending on the
>>> app.
>>
>> Perhaps
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Alfred von Campe wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2015, at 12:21, Jim Perrin wrote:
>
>>> Isn't this the problem that docker was invented to solve?
>>
>>
>> Yes, you could address this with docker quite easily, depending on the app.
>
> Perhaps, but I’m running CentOS 6.6 i68
On Mar 31, 2015, at 12:21, Jim Perrin wrote:
>> Isn't this the problem that docker was invented to solve?
>
>
> Yes, you could address this with docker quite easily, depending on the app.
Perhaps, but I’m running CentOS 6.6 i686 (i.e., 32-bit), and it appears that
Docker requires 64-bit. Oh w
On 03/31/2015 11:12 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Alfred von Campe
> wrote:
>>
>>> Tell your vendor you want a centos 6 version of the library, it's really
>>> not a huge ask, esp if you are paying them. If they say no, do a new
>>> install of centos 7 and run it on
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Alfred von Campe wrote:
>
>> Tell your vendor you want a centos 6 version of the library, it's really
>> not a huge ask, esp if you are paying them. If they say no, do a new
>> install of centos 7 and run it on a different box. It's the only reasonable
>> thing to
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:47:24PM -0400, Alfred von Campe wrote:
> Forget I ever said I wanted to replace glibc. Assume it’s a different
> library or application.
Except libc is not just like any other library. Unless you're going
to recompile the software, the location of the ld loader is hard
> On Mar 30, 2015, at 17:24, Patrick Flaherty wrote:
>
> Tell your vendor you want a centos 6 version of the library, it's really
> not a huge ask, esp if you are paying them. If they say no, do a new
> install of centos 7 and run it on a different box. It's the only reasonable
> thing to do, an
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Alfred von Campe
wrote:
> We have a third party shared library from a vendor that requires glib 2.15
> or newer. We are using CentOS 6.6 which comes with glibc 2.12, and I know
> it can't be replaced as it's an integral part of the OS.
>
> However, is it possibl
Alfred von Campe wrote:
> We have a third party shared library from a vendor that requires glib 2.15 or
> newer.
> We are using CentOS 6.6 which comes with glibc 2.12, and I know it can’t be
> replaced
> as it’s an integral part of the OS.
>
> However, is it possible to build a glib 2.15 RPM fro
We have a third party shared library from a vendor that requires glib 2.15 or
newer. We are using CentOS 6.6 which comes with glibc 2.12, and I know it
can’t be replaced as it’s an integral part of the OS.
However, is it possible to build a glib 2.15 RPM from source to be installed in
/opt/cen
11 matches
Mail list logo
