Ahaaa,
Thanks Gordon. I found it. This app required the old libc5. But some
for reason the rpm installed "/i486-linux-libc5" as perm 700 instead of
755.
"ldd" I'll have to remember that. It told two different stories
depending if I was running as root or as normal user. Pointed me right
at t
Robert Canary wrote:
/usr/local/sbin/doreg: can't load library 'libc.so.5'
It is a permissions problem for sure.
Where is libc.so.5, and what are its permissions?
Use 'ldd /usr/local/sbin/doreg' to find the library, and 'ls -l' to
check its permissions. Make sure that the library and the direct
I have a perl signup script which runs from the signup server. After
processing all the info from the web page, it dose a system() call to
the program(doreg) that actually dose the interfacing and authentication
to the appropriate server. However, I can run the doreg from the
command line and fee
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
One of my previous mail was talking about socket error between a RH 7.2 and a sun
solaris 6 (not occurs between RH 6.2). In fact, I have rebuilt the binaries on my
notebook with Debian sarge but i have the same error !
So, I wonder if the
I was missing the compat-libstdc++ library. No need for links.
Call me goofy.
Jacob
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, you wrote:
> For those of you developers out there:
>
> I'm running RH 7.0, and have an application which is bombing out trying to load
> the libstdc++-libc6.1.1.so.2 library. I have libs
For those of you developers out there:
I'm running RH 7.0, and have an application which is bombing out trying to load
the libstdc++-libc6.1.1.so.2 library. I have libstdc++-libc6.2.2.so.2 library.
Any reason why I couldn't create a link from libstdc++-libc6.1.1.so.2 to
libstdc++-libc6.2.2.so.2?
="gcc" ./configure --the-other-option-goes-here but how do I tell the
program to not link against libc-2.2, instead link to the old libc from
compat-glibc-6.2 package?
Thanks...
/john
___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.red
Hi,
I have recently upgraded my libc package from libc-5.3.12-27.i386.rpm to
libc-5.4.44-1rh42.i386.rpm. Now, I get the following error message
whenever I try to run acroread (the Acrobat 3.0 reader):
/usr/local/Acrobat3/Reader/intellinux/bin/acroread: can't load library
'
Hi,
Where could i find a rpm of a libc.so.5.4.X ?
regards
JY
/ \ LEBLIN Jean-Yves
/ _ _ \IAE de Nantes
|(0)^(0) |02 40 14 12 04
|<_> |
| \ _ / |
/ | |
hi,
check also: http://www.waldherr.org/soffice/
HTH
ciao fede
LEBLIN JY wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I'd like to upgrade(downgrade ?), (i'd better say change) my libc6 for the
> libc-5.4.44 so that i can install Star Office 4. I've already get the
> libc-5.4.44.bin.tar
On Wed, 20 May 1998, LEBLIN JY wrote:
> I'd like to upgrade(downgrade ?), (i'd better say change) my libc6 for the
> libc-5.4.44 so that i can install Star Office 4. I've already get the
> libc-5.4.44.bin.tar file (about 4.5Mo) but i don't really know how to
Hi,
I'd like to upgrade(downgrade ?), (i'd better say change) my libc6 for the
libc-5.4.44 so that i can install Star Office 4. I've already get the
libc-5.4.44.bin.tar file (about 4.5Mo) but i don't really know how to
proceed, i'm afraid to make mistakes. Has anobody al
Sorry it took this long to say some thanks to Chris Frost, Greg Fall, Ray
Curtis, and Marco Shaw (hope I didn't miss anyone else) for the assistence
with my "libc.*" queries; demanding hours at work prevent me from spending
the amount of time tinkering with Linux that I'd lik
-Original Message-
From: Ray Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 2:32 AM
Subject: Re: Upgrading libc.*
>If you are running the default setup '.' is not in your path therefore
>when you want to
for the first line on my machine.
>
> Marco
>
> >Thanks for responding to my query about "libc".
> >
> >One question I'm hoping you (or somebody) can answer, though; I did
> >everything you mentioned on your web page but I'm having trouble w
You are using the modified setup? One thing you can do is 'vi setup'. I
don't remember if the setup script is 'bash' or 'perl', but I remember
having to change the path for the first line on my machine.
Marco
>Thanks for responding to my query about &quo
>>>>> "pg" == Paul Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
pg> At 12:33 AM 5/5/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>> Big mistake, don't upgrade the complete libc just for
>> StarOffice this will break other things.
>>
>>
At 12:33 AM 5/5/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Big mistake, don't upgrade the complete libc just for
>StarOffice this will break other things.
>
>Check my website below for the info you need to
>install staroffice.
>
>--
>Curtis Consulting
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTE
Paul Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said
>So (not having found an RPM) I went to Sunsite to see if they had it; I came
>up with the two following files:
>
>libc-5.4.44.bin.tar.gz
>libc-5.4.44.tar.gz
>
>There was a big difference in file sizes; which
Big mistake, don't upgrade the complete libc just for
StarOffice this will break other things.
Check my website below for the info you need to
install staroffice.
--
Curtis Consulting
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.clark.net/pub/ray
A visit to a fresh place
llation instructions call for libc to be upgraded to 5.4.44
> in order for installation program to work properly.
>
> I looked through the Redhat FTP site to see if they had an RPM for 5.4.44
> and it appears that they only have up to 5.3.1 (or pretty close). Is there
> another plac
end you use one of these, as a libc update gone wrong
(if it went *really* wrong) would mean no bootup (worst case of course).
If there isn't a libc update in /pub/updates/whatever, and you don't want
to use /pub/contrib/i386, look in the tree for redhat 4.2, see if that is
current enough
Hi;
This is probably an easy question for the experts; I'm doing (what I hope
is) the smart thing by asking before leaping off the cliff.
I would like to install the Star Office office suite on my linux box (Redhat
4.0). The installation instructions call for libc to be upgraded to 5.4.
Redhat is very well tied (down) to libc 5.3.12. Because of
glibc and other complexities, you really shouldn't have tried doing
that. Instead, if you have a package that absolutely requires a later
version of libc, then what you should do is extract the library to an
out of the way place (o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 1 May 1998, Kevin W. Nikiforuk wrote:
> In order to get a software package which requires threads working, I
> recently upgraded my RedHat 4.0 based system to:
>
> libc-5.4.44-1rh42.i386.rpm libc-profile-5.4.44-1rh42.i386.rpm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I'm not certain if this should be in redhat-install, but this list seemed
the most likely place!
In order to get a software package which requires threads working, I
recently upgraded my RedHat 4.0 based system to:
libc-5.4.44-1rh42.i386.rpm
I upgraded with libc-5.4.44-1rh42.i386.rpm and also
ld.so-1.9.5-5.i386.rpm. Now, Netscape, and some other programs don't
work.
I get the error message "can't load library libXt.so.6". Am i missing a
link somewhere? I tried ldconfig and still nothing works. Any help would
be
-Original Message-
From: Phil Risby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: zaterdag 4 april 1998 7:14
Subject: Re: Help with libc-5.4.44 install
David Brett wrote:
> Not being all that fami
>Original Message-
>from: David Brett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: zaterdag 4 april 1998 7:07
>Subject: Help with libc-5.4.44 install
>Not being all that familiar with Linux, I am trying to install Star Office
>
David Brett wrote:
> Not being all that familiar with Linux, I am trying to install Star Office
> on my machine running RedHat 5.0. When I try it fails right away with a
> script error. After searching Stars web site, I find I need libc-5.4.44.
> I locate this file and attempt t
Not being all that familiar with Linux, I am trying to install Star Office
on my machine running RedHat 5.0. When I try it fails right away with a
script error. After searching Stars web site, I find I need libc-5.4.44.
I locate this file and attempt to install it according to the release
file
There appears to be a bug in the resolver in libc-5.3.12. When a
program uses gethostbyaddr() to do a reverse DNS lookup and that returns
a CNAME instead of a PTR, the gethostbyaddr returns "Host name lookup
failure" instead of following the CNAME and returning the cannonical
name o
Chris Fishwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
> I have an RPM titled libc-5.4.44-1rh42.i386.rpm, which is used, as
> indicated by the filename, to upgrade libc on RH4.2 systems. My question
> is, is it safe to use this same RPM on RH5.0 systems?? I need to upgrad
Hi All,
I have an RPM titled libc-5.4.44-1rh42.i386.rpm, which is used, as
indicated by the filename, to upgrade libc on RH4.2 systems. My question
is, is it safe to use this same RPM on RH5.0 systems?? I need to upgrade
libc so that I can run StarOffice 4.0... If it is not safe to do
> I have an RPM titled libc-5.4.44-1rh42.i386.rpm, which is used, as
> indicated by the filename, to upgrade libc on RH4.2 systems. My question
> is, is it safe to use this same RPM on RH5.0 systems?? I need to upgrade
> libc so that I can run StarOffice 4.0... If it is no
I was corrected on this issue several times. Thanks for the reply! I
had not known. I had problems with the first rattle out of the box for RH
5.0, and followed the comments on the list that gave me this impression.
It appears that this impression was due to murphy stepping in with the
exact
On Sat, 14 Mar 1998, Dave Wreski wrote:
> Ok, but how often do you work on the machine compiling 4.2 programs, then all
> of the sudden say 'Hey, I need to compile a 5.0 program', vs having a lilo
> configuration that boots into 4.2 or 5.0?
You don't need to reboot the machine. It's just a whol
> Get youself an updated RH 4.2 RPMs directory, create a 1gig partition in
> /mnt/rh4.2 for example, then do a
> mkdir -p /mnt/rh4.2/var/lib/rpm
> rpm --root /mnt/rh4.2 --initdb
> rpm --root /mnt/rh4.2 --noscripts -ivh *.i386.rpm
>
> Then:
> chroot /mnt/rh4.2 bash
> and yo
On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Greg Fall wrote:
> files in order to build libc5 apps on glibc systems. This is good advice,
> but it is impossible to follow with RH 5.0, unless you tear up the libc5
> sources and add the header files yourself.
Or realise that the code is broken and closer POSIX complianc
On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Scott Drake wrote:
> I don't really think this is plain wrong, although libc5 might be dead in your eyes
> you just can't drop support for it and expect the whole world to follow. It makes
There is a difference between continuing building a distribution around
libc5 (which
On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Cristian Gafton wrote:
> I am sorry for you feeling that way. What was your particular problem,
> again ? (sorry for not following very closely this subject-ever-changing
> thread...)
You didn't ask me, but I've mentioned before, no libc5 header files are
part of 5.0. I kno
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Scott Drake wrote:
> I too am disappointed that after 4 months this problem still hasn't been
> addressed, so much for Quality Control. But just like Mirco$oft, they have our
> money now so screw us :(
I am sorry for you feeling that way. What was your particular problem,
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Scott Drake wrote:
> So what you are saying Mike is that anyone who purchased RH 5.0 and needs
> to compile libc5 programs WASTED their Hard Earned Money on it since RH
> 5.0 will not compile libc5 programs?
Most likely will compile them and even more likely will run the a
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Bug Hunter wrote:
> I second and third that. Unfortunately, because you did _NOT_ provide
> backward compatibility of any sort, I was unable to put 5.0 into
> production. I _will_ _not_ put RH 5.1 or 5.2 or 5.x into production unless
> I can figure out ways to support olde
On Fri, 13 Mar 98 10:43:00 -0500, "Scott Drake" wrote:
>I don't really think this is plain wrong, although libc5 might be dead in your
> eyes
>you just can't drop support for it and expect the whole world to follow. It ma
>kes
>no sense to just drop support for something just because you think
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 20:11:04 -0500, Mike Wangsmo wrote:
>>I too am disappointed that after 4 months this problem still hasn't been
>>addressed, so much for Quality Control. But just like Mirco$oft, they have
our
>>money now so screw us :(
>
>That is just plain wrong! The whole point is libc5
> Once I get the round-tuit, I may figure out how to support the older
> programs. It should be _possible_, given intelligent linkers. Heck, a
> linker that reads a load map that says "for this program, use this
> library" would work. If you did it right, it would even operate very
> quickly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Bug Hunter wrote:
> ... Unfortunately, because you did _NOT_ provide
> backward compatibility of any sort, I was unable to put 5.0 into
> production. I _will_ _not_ put RH 5.1 or 5.2 or 5.x into production unless
> I can figure out ways
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 21:59:06 -0600 (CST), Bug Hunter wrote:
> I second and third that. Unfortunately, because you did _NOT_ provide
>backward compatibility of any sort, I was unable to put 5.0 into
>production. I _will_ _not_ put RH 5.1 or 5.2 or 5.x into production unless
>I can figure out wa
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Bug Hunter wrote:
>
>
> It is my opinion that RH lost sight of its market with 5.0, and will pay
> for it (even if just a little) when 5.1 and 5.2 and 5.3 come out. People
> will probably start coming back at around 5.4 and above, again IMO.
>
> So, the good news is 4.2
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Adoram Rogel wrote:
> The fact that I am disappointed with *this* experience with RH5 is because of
> a specific problem that I have, and that I need my production network to keep
> on going with upgrading all the machines to glibc because of one machine.
> My entire netw
I'd bet if you offered your 5.0 for $35 you would only be out $15, and I'm
sure there would be a taker.
... Steve
Adoram Rogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Wreski wrote:
> >
> > > Well, the truth is that I do feel that I wasted the $50, and I am
> > > disappointed.
> >
> > I assume you
At 09:31 PM 3/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>On 12 Mar 98 at 20:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> > "ar" == Adoram Rogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> ar> Dave Wreski wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Well, the truth is that I do feel that I wasted the $50, and I am
>> >> > disappointed.
>> >>
>> >> I ass
On 12 Mar 98 at 20:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 98 18:54:35 -0500, "Scott Drake" wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:07:14 -0500, Adoram Rogel wrote:
> >
> >>Scott Drake wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So what you are saying Mike is that anyone who purchased RH 5.0 and
> >needs
> >>> to co
On 12 Mar 98 at 20:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > "ar" == Adoram Rogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ar> Dave Wreski wrote:
> >>
> >> > Well, the truth is that I do feel that I wasted the $50, and I am
> >> > disappointed.
> >>
> >> I assume you meant do _not_ feel that you wasted the
> Anyway, 4.1 -> 4.2 was a series of bug/security fixes. I must also mention that
> anyone who is either going to install 4.2 or is currently running it, please
> check the errata and incorporate all of the security fixes that are posted
> there. There have been major security issues that have
> "ar" == Adoram Rogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ar> Dave Wreski wrote:
>>
>> > Well, the truth is that I do feel that I wasted the $50, and I am
>> > disappointed.
>>
>> I assume you meant do _not_ feel that you wasted the $50...
ar> Actualy, I meant that I *do* feel that I wasted the $
On Thu, 12 Mar 98 18:54:35 -0500, "Scott Drake" wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:07:14 -0500, Adoram Rogel wrote:
>
>>Scott Drake wrote:
>>>
>>> So what you are saying Mike is that anyone who purchased RH 5.0 and
>needs
>>> to compile libc5 programs WASTED their Hard Earned Money on it since
>R
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:07:14 -0500, Adoram Rogel wrote:
>Scott Drake wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 14:40:01 -0500, Mike Wangsmo wrote:
>>
>> >>So, the question is: Can I install RH 5.0 without glibc ?
>> >>I just want libc-5.
>> >>Ca
Dave Wreski wrote:
>
> > Well, the truth is that I do feel that I wasted the $50, and I am
> > disappointed.
>
> I assume you meant do _not_ feel that you wasted the $50...
Actualy, I meant that I *do* feel that I wasted the $50, as I cant use
RH 5.0
> > I should have bought the 4.2 distributi
> Well, the truth is that I do feel that I wasted the $50, and I am
> disappointed.
I assume you meant do _not_ feel that you wasted the $50...
> I should have bought the 4.2 distribution, if at all (I have 4.1).
The differences between 4.1 and 4.2 were basically bugfixes -- no real
improvemen
Scott Drake wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 14:40:01 -0500, Mike Wangsmo wrote:
>
> >>So, the question is: Can I install RH 5.0 without glibc ?
> >>I just want libc-5.
> >>Can I remove glibc now and have just libc-5 ?
> >
> >Nope. Every bin
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 14:40:01 -0500, Mike Wangsmo wrote:
>>So, the question is: Can I install RH 5.0 without glibc ?
>>I just want libc-5.
>>Can I remove glibc now and have just libc-5 ?
>
>Nope. Every bin on a RH5.0 system (minus a very small number) is linked
>ag
Mike Wangsmo wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:11:23 -0500, Adoram Rogel wrote:
>
> >So, the question is: Can I install RH 5.0 without glibc ?
> >I just want libc-5.
> >Can I remove glibc now and have just libc-5 ?
>
> Nope. Every bin on a RH5.0 system (min
> So, I read how to have both libc-5 and glibc (libc-6).
> I don't even want to start with this.
> I don't need libc-6 at all, so why go thru all of this ?
>
> So, the question is: Can I install RH 5.0 without glibc ?
> I just want libc-5.
> Can I remove glibc now
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:11:23 -0500, Adoram Rogel wrote:
>So, the question is: Can I install RH 5.0 without glibc ?
>I just want libc-5.
>Can I remove glibc now and have just libc-5 ?
Nope. Every bin on a RH5.0 system (minus a very small number) is linked
against glibc. If you wan
So, I read how to have both libc-5 and glibc (libc-6).
I don't even want to start with this.
I don't need libc-6 at all, so why go thru all of this ?
So, the question is: Can I install RH 5.0 without glibc ?
I just want libc-5.
Can I remove glibc now and have just libc-5 ?
If not, I&
67 matches
Mail list logo
