Michael Lankton <satan3@home.com> writes: | > Wine failed dependancies: | > ld-linux.so.2 | > libc.so.6 | > libm.so.6 | | libc.so.6 and libm.so.6 are glibc2, wrong dist :) Yes, please wait until S.u.S.E. Linux 5.3 will be out; with 5.3 it will be possible to run glibc2 binaries. OTOH, we'll ship an wine update, too. -- Karl Eichwalder S.u.S.E. GmbH Fax +49-911-3206727 ke@suse.de Gebhardtstrasse 2 Mo & Th 13:00-18:00: <A HREF="http://www.suse.de/~ke/"><A HREF="http://www.suse.de/~ke/</A">http://www.suse.de/~ke/</A</A>> 90762 Fuerth, Germany Hotline +49-911-3247130 - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

Redhat and Debian (and Stampede?) use glibc2 (libc6), while other dists, including SuSE are still libc5 (glibc1). SuSE is switching to glibc2 with SuSE 6.0. libc5/glibc2 are the c libraries used by your compiler, and something you shouldn't mess with unless you do your homework about making them coexist. It's much easier to let your dist do that for you, and SuSE will have glibc2 binary support in the soon to be released 5.3 Steven T. Hatton wrote:

Michael,

As I understand this, the libc.so.6 etc., are used in another (popular) distribution. I must confess I don't understand exactly what these lib?.so.? files do for you. I know that messing with them can have fatal consequences on any Unix box. I also know that I have had to upgrade them at times to get newer software to work. What the heck are lib?.so.? ? Can you give me a brief rundown on what these do? I guess I cannot use the glibc2 files on S.u.S.E?

Can you point me to a good source (FAQ) on these issues?

TIA,

Steve

-- ==================================================================== Michael Lankton <A HREF="http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org"><A HREF="http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org</A">http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org</A</A>> ==================================================================== - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

I hate to be picky, but I hate being misquoted even more. I DID NOT WRITE THE BELOW EXCERPT, SOMEONE ELSE DID. Michael Johnson wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, Michael Lankton wrote:

...

...

As I understand this, the libc.so.6 etc., are used in another (popular) distribution. I must confess I don't understand exactly what these lib?.so.? files do for you. I know that messing with them can have fatal consequences on any Unix box. I also know that I have had to upgrade them at times to get newer software to work. What the heck are lib?.so.? ? Can you give me a brief rundown on what these do? I guess I cannot use the glibc2 files on S.u.S.E?

Can you point me to a good source (FAQ) on these issues?

TIA,

Steve

-- ==================================================================== Michael Lankton <A HREF="http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org"><A HREF="http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org</A">http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org</A</A>> ==================================================================== - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

Michael Lankton wrote:

Redhat and Debian (and Stampede?) use glibc2 (libc6), while other dists, including SuSE are still libc5 (glibc1). SuSE is switching to glibc2 with SuSE 6.0. libc5/glibc2 are the c libraries used by your compiler, and something you shouldn't mess with unless you do your homework about making them coexist. It's much easier to let your dist do that for you, and SuSE will have glibc2 binary support in the soon to be released 5.3

Michael, Thanks again. Let me see if I am getting this through my thick skull. 1. Hypothesis: There are libraries that are linked into compiled code when the executables are created. o Are these compiled at the time the other object code is compiled? In other words, does my compiler grab the library source code and turn it into executable code, or does the linker just grab binary objects that are already compiled? 2. Hypothesis: There are libraries that are bound at run time. o This must happen in some cases because if I mess with *lib*.so.*'s I find my system becomes unusable. That is the executables are "calling" routines in the lib files while they execute. When you say there will be binaries of the libc6 in S.u.S.E. 5.3 I assume this means the lib files that are bound at run time will be there for executable that are compiled to use them. Is there any hope that I am close to understanding what is really going on here? This is very important to me because it alway seems to come up when I try to compile things like KDE, or ssh on Solaris, or when I try to install things like wine. Currently I'm getting : -Lgmp-2.0.2-ssh-2 -lgmp -Lzlib-1.0.4 -lz -lsocket -lnsl -lsec -L/usr/local/lib Undefined first referenced symbol in file __udiv_qrnnd gmp-2.0.2-ssh-2/libgmp.a(mpn_divmod_1.o) ld: fatal: Symbol referencing errors. No output written to ssh make: *** [ssh] Error 1 when I try to compile ssh. I have asked every list I can think of about this problem and can't seem to find an answer. Sorry for going slightly off topic. Steve -- [<A HREF="http://counter.li.org"><A HREF="http://counter.li.org</A">http://counter.li.org</A</A>>] S.u.S.E. Linux, www.suse.com I Think, I think I am, Therefore I am, I think? - Graeme Edge of the Moody Blues - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

Darren Benham wrote:

That is not quite correct for the lib?.so.?.? type libraries. The libraries are shared code. At compile time, pointers or links (of a sort) are stored in the code so that the executable can load the lib?.so.?.? module at the time of execution. If you are familiar with windows programming, it is similar to the DLL concept only better.

Michael Lankton (who is usually right) said: "SuSE is switching to glibc2 with SuSE 6.0. . .SuSE will have glibc2 binary support in the soon to be released 5.3." I take this to mean that binaries can be installed to act as the DLL's. (Technically libraries that link dynamically at runtime are DLL's. BG just used the extension .DLL. It wasn't his idea, though he'd like the world to think it was.) It also seems that there is another piece that needs to be in place to link these when compiling. Is this making sense? Where do the: libg++2.8.1.1a, libstdc++2.8.1.1 fit into the picutre? I assume these are the gnu extensions and standard c++ libraries. Are these all source code, or are there binary components to these as well? BTW, as we speak, I am compiling egcs to run on my Sun box. I have already had a minor victory using this. But that is another thread. Steve -- [<A HREF="http://counter.li.org"><A HREF="http://counter.li.org</A">http://counter.li.org</A</A>>] S.u.S.E. Linux, www.suse.com I Think, I think I am, Therefore I am, I think? - Graeme Edge of the Moody Blues - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

Michael Lankton (who is usually right) said: "SuSE is switching to glibc2 with SuSE 6.0. . .SuSE will have glibc2 binary support in the soon to be released 5.3." I knew about SuSE switching to 6.0, that's where all (or most) of SuSE's

On 27-Jul-98 Steven T. Hatton wrote: programs will be "linked" with glibc6. I believe, if I understand correctly, that 5.3 will contain the file(s)... sorta like just including the DLL in the windows directory but not much will be using it unless you install something.

I take this to mean that binaries can be installed to act as the DLL's. Now I'm getting on shaky ground, but I believe the binaries have to be comiled to be loadable libraries... but I could be wrong.

was.) It also seems that there is another piece that needs to be in place to link these when compiling. Is this making sense? There is.. it's all ld.so. This is the program that controls the loadable libraries. When an executable makes a call to a loadable library, ld.so intercepts the call and loads the library if necessary... it's more complicated than that but that's the idea.

Where do the: libg++2.8.1.1a, libstdc++2.8.1.1 fit into the picutre? I assume these are the gnu extensions and standard c++ libraries. Are these all source code, or are there binary components to these as well? The are just other library packages. I'm not familiar with exactly which ones or what they provide... I'm still a newbie at this.

I thought there was a problem with egcs and the current kernels.. I wasn't planning on switching until SuSE 6.0 ---------------------------------- <A HREF="http://benham.net/index.html"><A HREF="http://benham.net/index.html</A">http://benham.net/index.html</A</A>> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++ E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++ G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------------------------- - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e