Guess there is a difference between libc 2.1 and 2.2 but what is the
relation with libc 5 or libc 6 ??
The more I get into linux the more I drown.....
> Guess there is a difference between libc 2.1 and 2.2 but what is the
> relation with libc 5 or libc 6 ??
(linux)-libc-5.x is a older version of the linux-libc. It was loosely
based on glibc-1 The switch from libc-5 to libc-6 was around 1998. If
you want to run binaries, which predate that switch you have to install
a libc5 runtime environment, because there is no binary compatility
between libc-5 and libc-6.
Why don't you ask us what is the relation with libc 4? Or 3 :-)?Quote:> The more I get into linux the more I drown.....
>Both are versions of libc 6 (i.e. glibc2 is also known as libc 6).
>2.1 is the stable release series.
>> The more I get into linux the more I drown.....
>Why don't you ask us what is the relation with libc 4? Or 3 :-)?
but someone is bound to just to get some of us to bang our heads :)...
I'm trying to compile on a solaris system after doing a fresh os
install with developer bundles and c/c++ WS Pro compilers. /usr/lib
contains libc.so but no libc.a, <whereis libc.a> points to libc.so, but
my makefiles fail because they can't find the correct .a library files.
Where am I going wrong? What's the difference between the two? And, why
doesn't /usr/lib contain all my .a libraries? Any help would be
appreciated. I'm new to solaris development and am having a really hard
time setting up my environment to compile.