[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hamish Moffatt) wrote on 10.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I happened to copy the libc5 badblocks binaries onto my libc6 > system, for a project I'm working on, and for curiousity's sake, > ran ldd on it; > > [10:12am] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:DLX.lilo/rd-tree/bin# ldd ./badblocks > libext2fs.so.2 => /lib/libext2fs.so.2 (0x4000b000) > libcom_err.so.2 => /lib/libcom_err.so.2 (0x4001b000) > libc.so.5 => /lib/libc.so.5 (0x4001d000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x400d9000) > ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40178000) > > Two versions of libc? Looking at the individual libraries, > > [10:12am] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:DLX.lilo/rd-tree/bin# ldd /lib/libext2fs.so.2 > libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40013000) > /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x2aaaa000) > libcom_err.so.2 => /lib/libcom_err.so.2 (0x400b2000) > [10:19am] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:DLX.lilo/rd-tree/bin# ldd /lib/libcom_err.so.2 > libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40005000) > /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x2aaaa000) > > Is this a bug in something? I'd suspect in libext2fs and libcomerr: if they're libc6 dependant, they ought to have different sonames from the libc5 dependant versions, so ldso won't try to use them for libc5 programs. As there were several changes lately with these, which versions are you using? MfG Kai -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
