Re: glibc 2.2.5

[Hactar]

Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> 
> Hactar <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> >>
> >> address@hidden writes:
> >>
> >> > I finished compiling and installing gcc and glibc.  Now I can't execute
> >> > any dynamic binaries.

> >> >  I've got
> >> >
> >> > /lib/libc.so.6 -> /usr/local/lib/libc-2.2.5.so
> >> > /lib/ld-linux.so -> /usr/local/lib/ld-2.2.5.so
> >> > /usr/local/lib/ld-linux.so.2 -> ld-2.2.5.so
> >>
> >> Everything that'S in usr/local should be linked...

You mean the originals should be in /, or in /usr?  /usr's inaccessible,
early in the boot sequence.  I suppose I could populate /usr with a
skeleton set of libs, then mount the real /usr over it.  Don't know how
ld.so would deal with that.

> >> You've broken your installation since /lib/ld-linux.so.2 is hardcode
> >> into each binary.

> >> I strongly suggest to remove that broken
> >> installation and start with --prefix=/usr

> > How do you propose I should uninstall the erroneous installation?

> rm -rf - after fixing the links first.

A. Well, if I delete the files first, can it get worse than it is now?

B. You mean, place links where the files are now, to where they're going
to be?

C. Where should the originals and links be?

> You might need to reinstall via a different setup...

'ldconfig' is statically linked.  I have a statically-linked 'mv' and
emergency disks, which presumably contain 'mv', 'ls', etc.  Is there a
web site I can go to which has approximate recovery procedures?  If it's
only that it would take a long time, that's OK.

> Updating glibc is really not that easy...

Yeah, I'm finding out; there are lots of ways to mess up...

> Please ask for further help on the mailing lists!

I sent an identical message to the mailing list as soon as I realized my
mistake (<1 minute).  Unfamiliar mail client; I hit "reply to sender"
instead of "reply to all".  Oops.