[ale] doh! stupid glibc..

[Chris Ricker]

On Tue, 14 Jul 1998, Elijah Underwood wrote:

> Sorry! It was my typo. Where it says "libc.so." in the first line below it
> should read "libc.so.6".
> 
> > Elijah Underwood wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, so we've established that libc.so. is a feindish creation of
> > > redhat and thier glibc switcheroo. Now my question is, what do I need to
> > > do to get SuSE 5.2 to the point where it'll handle glibc? Is there a
> > > glibc-upgrade rpm?

Just to clear things up, libc.so.6 is also known as glibc 2.  The g in glibc
is for GNU, who primarily wrote it.  It has nothing to do with RedHat,
except that RedHat (and Debian) have been a bit quicker than some of the
slower-moving distributions (SuSE, Slackware, etc.) to adopt it.  Glibc 2 is
the future of Linux shared C libraries (it has lots of new features, major
security fixes, is the reference libc implementation for the common Intel
Unix binary standard stuff, etc.). Libc5 is dead.  H.J. Lu has said he will 
only release security patches for libc5....

If you want to upgrade your suse box to glibc, there are how-to's floating
around (see www.linux.org, among other places) which cover how to upgrade
from tarballs.  Be warned that it's a major undertaking if you're not very
familiar with how shared libraries work, and you should definitely have a
boot disk ready in case you screw up.

There are also glibc rpms kicking around, I'm sure.  At one time I saw an
announcement from suse about an unofficial glibc update that you could
download from them.  I don't know if that's still around, or which version
of suse it was intended for.

later,
chris

--
Chris Ricker                                            kaboom at gatech.edu