On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 08:30:24AM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 05:25:22PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 12:16:31AM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > > I copied libc.so.4 manually to /usr/lib but that is not sufficient.
> > > It looks like ld-elf sticks to libc.so.4 even if I move the symlink
> > > libc.so back from libc.so.4 to libc.so.3
> >
> > Yes. Each shared library knows it's name when it was compiled (minor
> > hand waving here). The linker then burns the shlib name (not file name,
> > but shlib name gotten from a header in the shlib.
>
> The linker burns the shlib name into the executable it links, right?
> Then why don't my executables linked end of december with libc.so.3
> work anymore?
>
> Essentially everything linked shared is now broken. And I have only
> built/installed libc.so.4 (I did not get any further :/) and not any
> executables.
>
> So, why are the 'old' executablas no longer working happily with libc.so.3
> they are linked to?
Thanks to Marcel for flipping my misconception: I was under impression
that libc.so.4 was a *new* libc.so, in other words that my freshly
generated .4 was the first .4 ever. That was wrong, there has been a .4
before so the December executables also had internal references to the
.4 version.
I resurrected things by grabbing an 'old' .4 library from another Alpha.
Now things work again.
Wilko
--
Wilko Bulte Arnhem, The Netherlands - The FreeBSD Project
WWW : http://www.tcja.nl http://www.freebsd.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
