How do I relink libc.so.4 to libc.so.4.4.1?

How do I relink libc.so.4 to libc.so.4.4.1?

Post by Philippe N. Temp » Thu, 22 Jul 1993 13:07:20



I got gcc 2.4.5 off of sunsite.unc.edu recently.  I installed the
binaries and other support files in their respective directories.
The compiler later complained about libc.so.4 being still linked
to libc.so.4.3.3.  How do I relink it to libc.so.4.4.1 without
losing the system?

I lost the system once by brilliantly deleting libc.so.4 and trying
to create another file like to link to the newer libc.  *Now* I think
I'm getting the hang of it (well, almost)! :-))

Philippe

 
 
 

How do I relink libc.so.4 to libc.so.4.4.1?

Post by Brian McCaul » Thu, 22 Jul 1993 19:36:15



Quote:> How do I relink it to libc.so.4.4.1 without
> losing the system?

Use ``ln -sf'' to do it in one step (as per the release notes).

It's always a good idea to make sure you have a standalone boot
floppy set in case you muck it up.
--

 .  _\\__[oo       from       | Voice: +44 21 471 3789 (home)

.  l___\\    /~~) /~~[  /   [ |   Fax: +44 21 627 2175 (work)
 # ll  l\\  ~~~~ ~   ~ ~    ~ | Snail: 197 Harborne Lane, B29 6SS, UK
###LL  LL\\ (Brian McCauley)  |  ICBM: 52.5N 1.9W

 
 
 

How do I relink libc.so.4 to libc.so.4.4.1?

Post by Henrik Lu » Thu, 22 Jul 1993 20:22:42



Quote:>I got gcc 2.4.5 off of sunsite.unc.edu recently.  I installed the
>binaries and other support files in their respective directories.
>The compiler later complained about libc.so.4 being still linked
>to libc.so.4.3.3.  How do I relink it to libc.so.4.4.1 without
>losing the system?
>I lost the system once by brilliantly deleting libc.so.4 and trying
>to create another file like to link to the newer libc.  *Now* I think
>I'm getting the hang of it (well, almost)! :-))
>Philippe

the answer is blowing in the wind, oh sorry in the FAQ.

read the (weekly?) postings 'READ THIS BEFORE POSTING'
look in the README, FAQ first.

ln -f is the answer -f means force

so

        ln -f libc.so.4 libc.so.4.4.1

should do the job

Henrik Lund

 
 
 

How do I relink libc.so.4 to libc.so.4.4.1?

Post by Jeff Kue » Fri, 23 Jul 1993 03:02:03




> >I got gcc 2.4.5 off of sunsite.unc.edu recently.  I installed the
> >binaries and other support files in their respective directories.
> >The compiler later complained about libc.so.4 being still linked
> >to libc.so.4.3.3.  How do I relink it to libc.so.4.4.1 without
> >losing the system?

> >I lost the system once by brilliantly deleting libc.so.4 and trying
> >to create another file like to link to the newer libc.  *Now* I think
> >I'm getting the hang of it (well, almost)! :-))

> >Philippe

> the answer is blowing in the wind, oh sorry in the FAQ.

> read the (weekly?) postings 'READ THIS BEFORE POSTING'
> look in the README, FAQ first.

> ln -f is the answer -f means force

> so

>    ln -f libc.so.4 libc.so.4.4.1

> should do the job

> Henrik Lund


nope.  that trashes his new library.  maybe he isn't the only one needing to
read the FAQ ;-)  the correct answer is:

        ln -sf libc.so.4.4.1 libc.so.4

        (force symbolic link... filenames in the same order as for cp & mv)
        (ie. ln -sf existingfile newsymlink)

personally, i'd rather answer one FAQ posting than try to post corrections to
all the incorrect FAQ answers.

--jeff

 
 
 

How do I relink libc.so.4 to libc.so.4.4.1?

Post by Bas de Bakk » Fri, 23 Jul 1993 01:49:30



> look in the README, FAQ first.

And RTFM yourself.

Quote:> ln -f is the answer -f means force
> so
>    ln -f libc.so.4 libc.so.4.4.1
> should do the job

That should be just the other way around:

ln -sf libc.so.4.4.1 libc.so.4

Bas.

 
 
 

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

Hi all.

I have a program using dns_mkquery, gethostbyaddr_r and a few other.  I
upgraded from Slackware 3.4 to
Redhat 5.1 (too see if Redhat was really as easy as all told - but
that's a different story) and now I see that
my program doesn't build because the API to these networking routines
changed.  I can see this as
viable if the industry standard were going that way, but the UNIX98 spec
didn't seem to call for these
changes as I could see, so does anyone know why this happened.  The long
and short is that instead
of these routines having a return value (hostent **) which really only
pointed to something you'd passed
in (hostent *), you now have to pass in the item.  I dunno why this
change happened, but I don't like
having to rewrite API's without a reason.  Any ideas?  I'm not as good
as I should be on rechecking these

I'd greatly appreciate it.

Thanks

kenbo "frustrated"

(Now that I finally have a gdb with thread support, I cannot build my
app to debug!  ARGH!)

  vcard.vcf
< 1K Download

2. Offre d'emploi Ingénieur Systè me Unix

3. libc.so.4 vs libc.so.5 ?

4. Kernel 2.2.2 Bug: kernel timer.....

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

6. Connection Problems with LLinux & 3C590

7. libc.so & libc.so.1

8. ATAPI CDROM prolbems

9. Using libc.a versus libc.so with FreeBSD

10. libc 2.x, libc 5, libc 6

11. Need help undestanding libc.so.3.0 -> libc.so.3.1 and libutil. Need a tech Guru probably :-)

12. Binaries linked to libc.so.5 AND libc.so.6? Hmmm...

13. libc.so.4.4.2 whereabouts......!@#$%%