Pedro Guimaraes wrote:
> The glibc2-HOWTO explains how you can have libc5 and glibc2 installed and
> both working. Read it *carefully* and everything should work if you follow
> the instructions!
>
> -Pedro
I did read the HOWTO before I wrote to the newsgroup. I didn't find what
I needed in it,
> I also did a build (glibc-2.1.2) but I can't change the
> /lib/ld-linux.so.2 link because of others using it. Anyone
> know how to get java to use the new library without
> changing that link?
The glibc2-HOWTO explains how you can have libc5 and glibc2 installed and
both working. Read it *care
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 07:30:34PM -0800, Alan Westhagen wrote:
> I tried to get this to work with blackdown jdk1.2.2-RC3. I already
> had URW fonts. Some of the documentation seemed to point towards
> installing Microsoft truetype fonts, as well. Since I am running
> RH6.0, which has the xfs f
Juergen Kreileder wrote:
>
> > Nathan Meyers writes:
>
> Nathan> Paolo Ciccone wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 11:22:03PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
> >> > No big surprise, they've commented out the relevant entries in the
> >> > font.properties file. I'll
Juergen Kreileder wrote:
>
> No big surprise, they've commented out the relevant entries in the
> font.properties file. I'll do the same for the next Blackdown release
> as people think that it is a bug, but it isn't.
>
Exactly, it just means that a font package isn't installed on the host
sys
Juergen Kreileder wrote:
>
> > Nathan Meyers writes:
>
> Nathan> Paolo Ciccone wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 11:22:03PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
> >> > No big surprise, they've commented out the relevant entries in the
> >> > font.properties file. I'll
On Wed, Dec 22, 1999 at 01:57:01AM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
> Paolo> Does anybody know if installing the URW fonts fixes the
> Paolo> problem ?
>
> Yes, but you have to restore the original '.1' entries in
> font.properties too.
I believe this is the best solution. Any reason for
> Nathan Meyers writes:
Nathan> Paolo Ciccone wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 11:22:03PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
>> > No big surprise, they've commented out the relevant entries in the
>> > font.properties file. I'll do the same for the next Blackdown releas
Paolo Ciccone wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 11:22:03PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
> > No big surprise, they've commented out the relevant entries in the
> > font.properties file. I'll do the same for the next Blackdown release
> > as people think that it is a bug, but it isn't.
> >
> >
> Paolo Ciccone writes:
Paolo> On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 11:22:03PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
>> No big surprise, they've commented out the relevant entries in
>> the font.properties file. I'll do the same for the next
>> Blackdown release as people think that it is a bug
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 11:22:03PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
> No big surprise, they've commented out the relevant entries in the
> font.properties file. I'll do the same for the next Blackdown release
> as people think that it is a bug, but it isn't.
>
> Try to display dingbats characters
> Alan Westhagen writes:
Alan> I spent about a day trying to solve font problems with
Alan> Blackdown JDK 1.2.2 RC3. I improved the overall font
Alan> situation with my RH6.0 system, but could not get rid of the
Alan> many warning messages about zapf fonts. This problem
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 08:51:03AM -0800, Paolo Ciccone wrote:
> The Sun/Inprise JKD has been tested with glibc 2.1.1.
Does anybody know whether it is possible to install the
glibc 2.1.2 as a secondary libc (having glibc 2.0.7 as
primary libc)? I´d like to do this in order to use
JBuilder togethe
John Hartman wrote:
>
> I wasn't able to run the Blackdown JDK 1.2.2 (or at least the JRE) with
> glibc 2.1.1, but installing glibc 2.1.2 did the trick. Still having
> annoying font problems, though...
>
> John
>
> André Dahlqvist wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I noted in Blackdowns README file that
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 12:31:17AM +0100, André Dahlqvist wrote:
> I noted in Blackdowns README file that glibc 2.1.2 is required, and read
> in Sun's README file that glic 2.1 is required for their version. Does
> anyone know if they mean that any 2.1.x version works?
The Sun/Inprise JKD has bee
I wasn't able to run the Blackdown JDK 1.2.2 (or at least the JRE) with
glibc 2.1.1, but installing glibc 2.1.2 did the trick. Still having
annoying font problems, though...
John
André Dahlqvist wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I noted in Blackdowns README file that glibc 2.1.2 is required, and read
> in S
On Tue, 4 May 1999, Steve Byrne wrote:
> Scott Murray writes:
[snip]
> > It seems to fix the problem I (and others I think) had with Runtime.exec
> > hanging sometimes when used with native threads. Which is good, as I
> > was almost resigned to putting in some Linux specific code into the ap
Scott Murray writes:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Tom McMichael wrote:
>
> [snip!]
>
> > Good point Paul ... checked out jitter bug and according to the "DONE"
> > section the two choices for glibc 2.1 are:
> > 1) jdk 1.2
> > 2) pre-pre-release of jdk117_v2 available at ...
> >
> > http://
On Tue, 4 May 1999, Tom McMichael wrote:
> Is there a reason why you haven't tried jdk117_v2 with glibc 2.1.1.
> I'm using it on my RH 6.0 install and it works great (using with
> swing and JDBC).
Because I've been sitting on this tarball a week waiting for a response
from sbb. Looking at the m
Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > An _unofficial_ version 1.1.6v5 compiled against glibc 2.1.1 pre1 is
> > available at http://www.seawood.org/java/ . Try to be gentle. If one
> > could mirror it or bless it and put it with the official releases to be
> > mirrored, my provider would be grateful. :)
>
> W
> An _unofficial_ version 1.1.6v5 compiled against glibc 2.1.1 pre1 is
> available at http://www.seawood.org/java/ . Try to be gentle. If one
> could mirror it or bless it and put it with the official releases to be
> mirrored, my provider would be grateful. :)
Well, I can mirror it at least:
> Scott Murray writes:
Scott> I don't want to sound ungrateful for the 1.2 effort (the
Scott> initial results of which I'm using with great success), but
Scott> is there an ETA for the release of jdk117_v2?
No, we want to make a JDK 1.1.8 release but we still haven't got the
sour
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Tom McMichael wrote:
[snip!]
> Good point Paul ... checked out jitter bug and according to the "DONE"
> section the two choices for glibc 2.1 are:
> 1) jdk 1.2
> 2) pre-pre-release of jdk117_v2 available at ...
>
> http://www.wisp.net/~kreilede/
>
> I'm downloading it rig
Paul Ho wrote:
> At 05:20 PM -0700 04/26/99, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
>
> >For 1.1 you may want to back up to 116v5, or you can try 1.2pre-v1,
> >but I've personally had no success with 1.1.7 and glibc2.1 either.
>
> There is a solution for jdk117 on glibc 2.0 and 2.1
> Read JitterBug for detail.
> It
At 06:09 PM -0500 04/26/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Is there still a planned glibc 2.1 release of pre-v1?
JDK1.2 pre-v1 works with glibc2.1
You have to use green threads and nojit.
README.linux have more info.
(BTW, from the README.linux pre-v1 was bulit on glibc 2.1)
Paul
-
At 05:20 PM -0700 04/26/99, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
>For 1.1 you may want to back up to 116v5, or you can try 1.2pre-v1,
>but I've personally had no success with 1.1.7 and glibc2.1 either.
There is a solution for jdk117 on glibc 2.0 and 2.1
Read JitterBug for detail.
It's more that a month old alrea
Pete Wyckoff wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Well I think the common problem with glibc 2.1 (2.1.1)
> > is the error on excuting the java binary :
> >
> > ./../bin/i586/green_threads/java: error in loading shared libraries:
> > ./../lib/i586/
> > green_threads/libjava.so: undefined symbol: _
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Has using glibc 2.1 with 1.2pre-v1 been confirmed as working ?
> (Don't want to download it if I don't have to ... )
Linux 2.2.6, jdk1.2pre-v1, glibc-2.1 (and 2.1.1pre1). Runs awt and
swing stuff. Noticeably slower than 117. Green_threads only. Odd
font problems (see
> For 1.1 you may want to back up to 116v5, or you can try 1.2pre-v1,
> but I've personally had no success with 1.1.7 and glibc2.1 either.
Has using glibc 2.1 with 1.2pre-v1 been confirmed as working ?
(Don't want to download it if I don't have to ... )
Tom McMichael
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Uncle George wrote:
> U just cant wait to bleed. Looks like 6.0 wont be released until may 10
>
RedHat 6.0 on FTP servers is available starting today actually
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Well I think the common problem with glibc 2.1 (2.1.1)
> is the error on excuting the java binary :
>
> ./../bin/i586/green_threads/java: error in loading shared libraries:
> ./../lib/i586/
> green_threads/libjava.so: undefined symbol: _dl_symbol_value
>
> I'm using Red
Pete Wyckoff wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > [..] It seems most messages about glibc 2.1
> > have gone unanswered ...
>
> Try posting a particular question, i.e. what's your error message? It
> works for me, but maybe we do different stuff.
>
> -- Pete
Well I think the com
U just cant wait to bleed. Looks like 6.0 wont be released until may 10
In reality 2.1 appears to be a tiger with a different set of stripes, and
personality. glibc cheating ( oops hacking ) will have to be redone/or
relearned !
gat
Tom McMichael wrote:
> fhave gone unanswered ... some have sai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there still a planned glibc 2.1 release of pre-v1?
>
> I hope this question hasn't been answered somewhere obvious, if it has, I
> apologize.
>
> Thanks for porting the jdk to linux, you've done an awesome job!
>
> -Mike
>
If there has been an answer to the
At 9:30 AM +0100 3/8/99, German Jose Gomez Garcia wrote:
> Well, although many people has reported strange problems with
>glibc-2.1, it is working ok here (I would say that it is working faster,
>but I have no benchmarks) and it supports things like Unix98 pty and more.
> The only prob
John Summerfield wrote:
> Why glibc 2.1? Linux libc6 C Library 2.0.7pre6 is all that's required for
> kernel 2.2.2 (which I'm running). I have glibc-2.0.7-29 and java's fine
> here.
Well, I don't know if it was wholly rational or not, but I'd broken
something in my shared libs and needed to rein
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Geoffrey T. Cheshire wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After some upgrade mania, which included a move from 2.0.36 to 2.2.1 and
> an upgrade to glibc 2.1, I now get the following message when I try to
> run any of the jdk programs:
Why glibc 2.1? Linux libc6 C Library 2.0.7pre6 is all t
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Michael Sinz wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:21:02 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> >An offpoint but related question Does anyone know of an easy
> >way to get the glibc source files installed? The latest version
> >from gnu is 2.0.6 (btw, how can redhat ha
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:21:02 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>An offpoint but related question Does anyone know of an easy
>way to get the glibc source files installed? The latest version
>from gnu is 2.0.6 (btw, how can redhat have a later version that
>gnu itself...) and the latest
39 matches
Mail list logo
