On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 05:34:20PM +0100, Robert Varga wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
>
>
> However I don't really like 8i, since it needs much more (and it should be
> written as MUCH MORE) resources than 8.0.5. I know there is one aspect of
> using 8i on linux when c
On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 11:04:36AM +, Jose Marin wrote:
> I originated this whole thread in debian-user; the app that does not work
> for me is the F compiler from Imagine1 (www.uni-comp.com/imagine1). It's
> a free (as in beer) commercial compiler, which has been recently made
> available i
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 23-Mar-00, 18:08 (CST), Andor Dirner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Robert Varga wrote:
> > >
> > > The other one it breaks is Oracle 8.0, and one needs to convert Redhat
> > > compatibility libraries to be able install it,
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Peter Cordes wrote:
> Is it possible to run stuff that is linked against glibc-2.0.7 (rh5.2 used
> that, so I imagine a lot of commercial stuff linked against that, or at
> least people have old commercial stuff linked against it and would rather
> not pay for a new version.)
On 23-Mar-00, 18:08 (CST), Andor Dirner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Robert Varga wrote:
> >
> > The other one it breaks is Oracle 8.0, and one needs to convert Redhat
> > compatibility libraries to be able install it, and a patch from Oracle.
> >
FWIW, I'm running Oracle 8
Hello all
I'm near from upgrading my Slink to Potato using dselect's FTP, but I'm
afraid if it can drive my system _really_ bad (broken).
I tried it six months ago, and the result was a reinstalling Slink from
CDs.
Did anyone try this way? Worked fine?
Taupter
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Robert Varga wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Eric Weigel wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote:
> > > > Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs.
> > > > Why not glib
> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:33:29 +1100
> From: Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: glibc-compat ???
>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote:
> > Strange. If i
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Eric Weigel wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote:
> > > Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs.
> > > Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros
> >
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 12:09:23PM -0500 , Eric Weigel wrote:
> I've thought about compatibility links, but like you said, they're both
> libc 6.0.
LD_PRELOAD
> Overall though, there doesn't seem to be a lot of broken stuff.
A friend is bitching about broken aplix(sp?). Thing is, it works on RH6
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote:
> > Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs.
> > Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros
> > have?
>
> They're both libc 6.0 -- how would ld.so
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote:
> Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs.
> Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros
> have?
They're both libc 6.0 -- how would ld.so know which one you wanted?
Any apps which run on 6.0 and
> > It seems we don't have such "compatibility" packages for Debian;
> > what am I missing? Could one install slink's glibc2.0 in a
> > non-obstrusive way under potato or woody?
>
> Maybe you could use alien and install the rpm? I thing potato and
> woody is totally commited to 2.1
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
