[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Backward compatibility problem 2.2.5 vs. 2.3.2

From: James Richard Tyrer
Subject: Backward compatibility problem 2.2.5 vs. 2.3.2
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:48:42 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312

I have an executable that was built against GLibc-2.2.x [it is MT's build of Corel-WINE]. When I upgraded from GLibc-2.3.1 to 2.3.2 it broke. There is no segment fault but WINE crashes.

I have determined that WINE requires:

Version References:
  required from libc.so.6:
    0x09691f73 0x00 04 GLIBC_2.1.3
    0x0d696911 0x00 03 GLIBC_2.1
    0x0d696910 0x00 02 GLIBC_2.0

so I built GLibc-2.2.5 with: --enable-oldest-abi=2.0 and installed in a subdirectory of: "/usr/".

When I try to run it by setting the: LD_LIBRARY_PATH, I get these errors:

basename: /lib/ld-linux.so.2: version `GLIBC_2.1.1' not found (required by /usr/i586-glibc225-linux/lib/libc.so.6) basename: /lib/ld-linux.so.2: version `GLIBC_2.2.3' not found (required by /usri586-glibc225-linux/lib/libc.so.6)/ basename: /lib/ld-linux.so.2: version `GLIBC_2.2' not found (required by /usr/i586-glibc225-linux/lib/libc.so.6)

And yes that: "ld-2.3.2.so" does require:

Version References:
  required from ld-linux.so.2:
    0x09691f71 0x00 18 GLIBC_2.1.1
    0x09691a73 0x00 17 GLIBC_2.2.3
    0x0d696911 0x00 16 GLIBC_2.1
    0x0d696912 0x00 15 GLIBC_2.2
    0x0d696910 0x00 14 GLIBC_2.0

I built GLibc-2.3.2 with --enable-oldest-abi=2.0, however the puzzle is that ld-linux.so.2 from GLibc-2.3.2 only has:

Version definitions:
1 0x01 0x0ee1b232 ld-linux.so.2
2 0x00 0x0d696910 GLIBC_2.0
3 0x00 0x0d696911 GLIBC_2.1
4 0x00 0x0d696913 GLIBC_2.3
5 0x00 0x0963cf85 GLIBC_PRIVATE

I'm not exactly sure about what that means but I clearly see that: GLIBC_2.1.1, GLIBC_2.2.3, & GLIBC_2.2 are not there.

So, I think that my problem is how do I build: "ld-2.3.2.so" in GLibc-2.3.2 with versioning for those in it.

I thought that that was what I was doing when I specified: --enable-oldest-abi=2.0. I am somewhat confused. Is this a bug or a configuration problem?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]