On Thu, 24 May 2012 15:22:23 -0600, Shane Johnson wrote:
> I have just run into a issue where the driver for a ASPEED video card
> worked in wheezy, and now is complaining about glibc not being at 2.14.
> When I look to see the version installed, it is 2.13. Does anyone know
> if
> there was a
I have just run into a issue where the driver for a ASPEED video card
worked in wheezy, and now is complaining about glibc not being at 2.14.
When I look to see the version installed, it is 2.13. Does anyone know if
there was a reversion or how I might go about resolving this?
Thanks
--
Shane
On Thu, Dec 23, 1999 at 03:33:24PM +1100, Peter Ross wrote:
> The libc development forked early on in the linux development, as GNU
> libc wasn't useable on linux systems. This was rectified in glibc 2.0,
> however the linux libc was up to v5, so glibc is sometimes called libc6.
>
> You will find
The libc development forked early on in the linux development, as GNU
libc wasn't useable on linux systems. This was rectified in glibc 2.0,
however the linux libc was up to v5, so glibc is sometimes called libc6.
You will find that a lot of programs are compiled against libc5 since it
should exi
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 02:09:20AM -0600, David J. Kanter wrote:
> What's the purpose of these files? And is the older version of glibc
> (version 2.0, right?) synonymous with libc5, and the newer version of glibc
> (2.2?) synonymous with libc6?
2.0 == libc5, 2.1 == glibc , 2.2 == ¿
> I'm a lit
its all libc ..
glibc i believe is just "GNU" Libc (but i could be wrong)
libc5 = obsolete, but still used by many programs like netscape, real
audio/video, star office, xview ..and many more..most of them either not
maintained very well or not maintained at all. the authors find it easier
to jus
What's the purpose of these files? And is the older version of glibc
(version 2.0, right?) synonymous with libc5, and the newer version of glibc
(2.2?) synonymous with libc6?
I'm a little confused because I thought my system was pretty up-to-date, but
when I tried to remove libc5, dselect wanted t
I have a machine on which I want only a small subset of my users to
have a valid shell...
Under debian 1.3, I made an NIS netgroup called 'admin' with these
users in it, and put the following entries in /etc/passwd
[EMAIL PROTECTED]::0:0:::
+::0:0:::/bin/false
So that users in the admin netgro
db files has no
target to build hosts files
in the other hand the library loads the db library before reading the
/etc/hosts file, this is very confusing...
anybody does use this _great_ feature of glibc2?
any comment/suggestion will be greatly appreciated
regards,
If you upgrade a Debian 1.3 system to 2.0, or install libc5 on a new 2.0
system, it will have the necessary libc files to meet the dependencies of
the netscape4 installer and the installer will successfully install the
libc6 version of netscape.
The installer also installs a wrapper script which
Vincent Murphy wrote:
>
> > The v4 installer assumes it is installing the libc5 version of NS,
> > thus
> > it has dependancies on the libc5 package. We now have libc6 versions of
> > NS, but there hasn't yet been an update to these Deb installers. So you
> > did what you had to do (insta
On Sat, 5 Sep 1998, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> Jianbo Zhang wrote:
> >
> > Hi Debians,
> >
> > When I run dpkg -i netscape4_4.0.12.deb, I got some error message: it
> > says that some libc5 and motif related files could not be found. So I
> > installed Communicator 4.06 in my fresh Debian (2.0) Linux
Jianbo Zhang wrote:
>
> Hi Debians,
>
> When I run dpkg -i netscape4_4.0.12.deb, I got some error message: it
> says that some libc5 and motif related files could not be found. So I
> installed Communicator 4.06 in my fresh Debian (2.0) Linux box with
> nsinstall. So far I did not find any prob
On Fri, Sep 04, 1998 at 04:55:44PM -0700, Bob Nielsen wrote:
> Either get the glibc version of Netscape
> in /pub/communicator/4.06/development/english/unix/linux20_glibc2
> or install the necessary libc5 packages.
>
> On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Jianbo Zhang wrote:
>
> > When I run dpkg -i netscape4_4.0
Either get the glibc version of Netscape
in /pub/communicator/4.06/development/english/unix/linux20_glibc2
or install the necessary libc5 packages.
On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Jianbo Zhang wrote:
> Hi Debians,
>
> When I run dpkg -i netscape4_4.0.12.deb, I got some error message: it
> says that some lib
Hi Debians,
When I run dpkg -i netscape4_4.0.12.deb, I got some error message: it
says that some libc5 and motif related files could not be found. So I
installed Communicator 4.06 in my fresh Debian (2.0) Linux box with
nsinstall. So far I did not find any problem, but I still do not know
why De
The difference between libc5 and libc6 is in the name "glibc2". Libc5
was predominantly Linux only. libc6/glibc2 is gnu libc. It is
installed (or will be) on systems besides Linux. This makes porting
between unices easier and makes the differences between them less.
glibc2 is m
Carroll Kong wrote:
> What kind of success would I get if I simply got a "tarball" of the
>glibc2 libs and ran the mozilla package? It should work... right?
Wrong. It isn't as simple as that.
To run glibc2 (libc6 on Linux) you need to do a proper upgrade accordi
What kind of success would I get if I simply got a "tarball" of the
glibc2 libs and ran the mozilla package? It should work... right?
Carroll Kong
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, Mar 10, 1998 at 09:10:07PM +:
> I heard that glibc2 (libc6) supports an extended character set.
> Is it correct ?
> Where (www.where) can I learn more about this support ?
Are you refering to glibc-localedata? An external tar that is a compile
time option
I heard that glibc2 (libc6) supports an extended character set.
Is it correct ?
Where (www.where) can I learn more about this support ?
Thank you.
--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Carroll Kong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ok... I see an "autoup.sh" lying around on the net that lets me upgrade
> my debian 1.3.1R6 to "2.0" in the sense that it gives me glibc2 and I can
> finally grab "hamm" packages. Anyone notice
On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Carroll Kong wrote:
> Ok... I see an "autoup.sh" lying around on the net that lets me upgrade
> my debian 1.3.1R6 to "2.0" in the sense that it gives me glibc2 and I can
> finally grab "hamm" packages. Anyone notice any parti
Ok... I see an "autoup.sh" lying around on the net that lets me upgrade
my debian 1.3.1R6 to "2.0" in the sense that it gives me glibc2 and I can
finally grab "hamm" packages. Anyone notice any particular bugs with glibc2 or
the hamm packages? (unstab
24 matches
Mail list logo
