libc 2.x, libc 5, libc 6

libc 2.x, libc 5, libc 6

Post by Paul L » Mon, 26 Feb 2001 07:54:31



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.....

 
 
 

libc 2.x, libc 5, libc 6

Post by Markus Kossman » Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:15:07



> Guess there is a difference between libc 2.1 and 2.2 but what is the
> relation with libc 5 or libc 6 ??

g(nu-)libc-2.x = (linux-)libc-6.x

(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.  

--
Markus Kossmann                                    


 
 
 

libc 2.x, libc 5, libc 6

Post by Peter T. Breue » Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:16:34



> Guess there is a difference between libc 2.1 and 2.2 but what is the
> relation with libc 5 or libc 6 ??

Both are versions of libc 6 (i.e. glibc2 is also known as libc 6).
2.1 is the stable release series.

Quote:> 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 :-)?

Peter

 
 
 

libc 2.x, libc 5, libc 6

Post by Peter T. Breue » Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:02:54



> g(nu-)libc-2.x = (linux-)libc-6.x
> (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.  

What! Of course there is! I'm always taking .o's out of glibc6.a
in order to add to my compiles under libc 5.  You mean "no link
compatibility".

Peter

 
 
 

libc 2.x, libc 5, libc 6

Post by Paul L » Wed, 28 Feb 2001 01:12:19




>> Guess there is a difference between libc 2.1 and 2.2 but what is the
>> relation with libc 5 or libc 6 ??

>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 :-)?

Becuz....only saw that the software (for akeia?) had the packages for
2.1, 2.2, 5, 6....just hope someone doesn't provide packages for all the
libc versions.....

but someone is bound to just to get some of us to bang our heads :)...

 
 
 

1. libc.a and libc.so, libc.so.1libc.so.2, where is my library?

Hi,
  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.

Very frustrated,

Steve

2. USR robotic 28800/w voice mail dial in problem!

3. Ooops..."libc.2.xx" --> "libc-4.2.xx"

4. eth0: Bus master arbitration failure, status 88f3.

5. problems upgrading libraries - libc-5.0.9 -> libc-5.2.18

6. want to make a script for newfs command

7. wait[34] problem with both libc-5 and libc-6.

8. BT Speedway ISDN and RH 5.2... still trying... need help!

9. Why did some of the networking API change between libc.so.5 and libc.so.6?

10. Statically compiled libc 2.2 using gethostbyname doesn't work on libc 2.0

11. Netscape Java crashes with libc, which libc should I use?

12. libc.so.4 vs libc.so.5 ?

13. bos.libc.4.3.2.10, bos.libc.4.3.3.0