Andrew, On 07/21/13 00:27, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Things from my past coming back to haunt me, but if people want to > keep ccing me... > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 10:15:25PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote: >> Yes. I've never been quite sure though whether the particular >> kernel versions to specify for LD_ASSUME_KERNEL when >> selecting the threading implementation are distro-specific, >> so I'm reluctant to go into the detail in the page. >> As you note, I do hint at the 2.2.5 version in the pthreads(7): > > asuffield@cyclone:~$ readelf -n /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 > > Notes at offset 0x00000270 with length 0x00000024: > Owner Data size Description > GNU 0x00000014 NT_GNU_BUILD_ID (unique build ID > bitstring) > Build ID: cddff8f45f5aa7b5ce64717e9e6ae3899f27972c > > Notes at offset 0x00000294 with length 0x00000020: > Owner Data size Description > GNU 0x00000010 NT_GNU_ABI_TAG (ABI version tag) > OS: Linux, ABI: 2.6.26 > asuffield@cyclone:~$ LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.6.25 /bin/true > /bin/true: error while loading shared libraries: libc.so.6: cannot open > shared object file: No such file or directory > asuffield@cyclone:~$ LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.6.26 /bin/true > asuffield@cyclone:~$ > > Apparently glibc has moved on and there's nothing in wheezy that can > use the old numbers. I expect other distros are similar. This > information is probably only of historical interest now. > > The number 2.2.5 used to be special because it was the *minimum* > version supported by the non-TLS libc that was shipped at the time.
Yup, I already noticed that older LD_ASSUME_KERNEL values gave results such as the above. However, I was not sure of the intention of your response? Did you mean that the proposed text should be changed? If so, could you be more specific about what changes you'd like. Thanks, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
