Docs Are Wrong About Binutils Version

[Dave]

The docs claim you only need binutils 2.11.somethingorother.  I had 2.11.2
and got all sorts of errors about multiply defined symbols when I tried
compiling (my current glibc is 2.1.3, trying to compile glibc 2.3.1).
When I upgraded to binutils 2.13.2.1, glibc compiled fine.  (It still
isn't passing make check, but I'm still googling around for info on that.)
I'm using gcc 3.2.1, so obviously that's not to blame ... my guess is
that 2.11.somethingorother worked fine for all the testers, since they
probably have much more modern glibcs installed.

The system itself is a rather heavily modified Slackware 7.1 system,
with a 2.4.19 kernel (although /usr/include still has the headers from
the original installation, which was a 2.2.16 kernel - the symlinks at
/usr/include/linux (and I forget the other one) were set up correctly
from the get-go (to /usr/src/linux/include/linux (/usr/src/linux is a
symlink to the current (2.4.19) kernel I run) and I forget the other
one off-hand), though).

If you need any more info, I'll be glad to supply it.  You should
probably update the docs, though, since I found many complaints on the
list archives, but no solutions.  (I just decided to try upgrading my
binutils out of desperation.)

 - Dave


-- 
Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor?
It's simple, Skyler.  You've seen what food processors do to food, right?

pgpQ7BGsGiLV3.pgp
Description: PGP signature