[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes:
Not really, as I noted in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200210/msg00522.html
Thanks for the clue. I had a quick grovel in the source and filed bug
#169758.
For what it's worth, you can change the behaviour in the
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Supported by what? Is there documentation?
By libc's ld.so as a hwcap.
Afraid I can't find out what that means -- at least without source
grovelling. (I assume `ld.so' should be `ld-linux.so'.)
Did you rerun ldconfig?
Yes. It appears (from
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 12:51:17PM +, Dave Love wrote:
What determines whether /usr/lib/v{8,9} actually gets searched by the
dynamic loader?
I told you this before in a thread on -devel, v8 isn't a supported flag.
You can move the v9 libs to
What determines whether /usr/lib/v{8,9} actually gets searched by the
dynamic loader?
I have libssl0.9.6g-9, which populates /usr/lib/v8 and /usr/lib/v9.
On an ultra, I see:
$ ldd /usr/sbin/sshd |grep libcrypto
libcrypto.so.0.9.6 = /usr/lib/v9/libcrypto.so.0.9.6 (0x7012c000)
But on a
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 12:51:17PM +, Dave Love wrote:
What determines whether /usr/lib/v{8,9} actually gets searched by the
dynamic loader?
I told you this before in a thread on -devel, v8 isn't a supported flag.
You can move the v9 libs to /usr/lib/muldiv/ though, since that is a
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I told you this before in a thread on -devel,
You must be confused. I don't know what -devel is, and I haven't
discussed this with anyone.
v8 isn't a supported flag.
Supported by what? Is there documentation?
You can move the v9 libs to
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 05:18:23PM +, Dave Love wrote:
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I told you this before in a thread on -devel,
Sorry, confused you with someone else.
v8 isn't a supported flag.
Supported by what? Is there documentation?
By libc's ld.so as a hwcap.
7 matches
Mail list logo
