On 8/6/05, Oron Peled <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 05 August 2005 12:59, tinaraj wrote:
> > After installing i tried to set the
> > LD_LIBRARY_PATH =/opt/WMS/glibc/lib/
>
> 1. The previous line was copied from your memory rather than your terminal
>(note the space before the '=').
>
On Friday 05 August 2005 12:59, tinaraj wrote:
> After installing i tried to set the
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH =/opt/WMS/glibc/lib/
1. The previous line was copied from your memory rather than your terminal
(note the space before the '=').
2. What you obviously did was to set the library search path t
tinaraj wrote:
I am working on FC4 with processor i686. Gcc (4.0.0) and glibc
(2.3.5) is already installled in this.
I wanted to install glibc 2.1.3 and gcc 1.1.2 (egcs 2.91.66)
I installed glibc 2.1.3 in my own local directory /opt/WMS/glibc and
gcc in /opt/WMS/gcc
After installing i tri
hi,
I am working on FC4 with processor i686. Gcc (4.0.0) and glibc (2.3.5)
is already installled in this.
I wanted to install glibc 2.1.3 and gcc 1.1.2 (egcs 2.91.66)
I installed glibc 2.1.3 in my own local directory /opt/WMS/glibc and
gcc in /opt/WMS/gcc
After installing i tried to set
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:17:22PM +, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yedidyah Bar-David) writes:
>
> > Fine for you, but what would you recommend for a new user (a learning
> > programmer, not a naive user)?
>
> In my mind, this is a good scheme. Not the only one possible, but I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yedidyah Bar-David) writes:
> Fine for you, but what would you recommend for a new user (a learning
> programmer, not a naive user)?
In my mind, this is a good scheme. Not the only one possible, but I
see advantages in using it.
Putting "." in PATH is a security issue that a l
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 04:01:50PM +, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>
> Well, many years ago (not 20, but still quite a few) I came to the
> conclusion that as a regular user I want . in my PATH, but only in the
> last position. It is a matter of convenience, and the security problem
> associated wit
Well, many years ago (not 20, but still quite a few) I came to the
conclusion that as a regular user I want . in my PATH, but only in the
last position. It is a matter of convenience, and the security problem
associated with it is limited as long as I am wearing my unpriviledged
user hat.
I never
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 01:02:23AM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005, Yedidyah Bar-David wrote about "Re: A second glibc on
> Linux ( there's a keren in the darkness )":
> > > P.S. I disagree that having the current directory in the path is only
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005, Yedidyah Bar-David wrote about "Re: A second glibc on
Linux ( there's a keren in the darkness )":
> > P.S. I disagree that having the current directory in the path is only the
> > "DOS way". It has always been the Unix way too, and I s
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 05:40:41PM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005, guy keren wrote about "Re: A second glibc on Linux (
> there's a keren in the darkness )":
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Oron Peled wrote:
> >
> > > To s
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005, guy keren wrote about "Re: A second glibc on Linux (
there's a keren in the darkness )":
>
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Oron Peled wrote:
>
> > To summarize: the folk tale about avoiding commands named test (or
> > Nee, for that matter)
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Oron Peled wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 March 2005 01:04, guy keren wrote:
> > 1. never ever ever specify link flags before specifying the list of object
> > files. don't ask me why - perhaps this is just a habbit.
>
> Because Unix/Linux linkers are designed to work in a singlep
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Oron Peled wrote:
> To summarize: the folk tale about avoiding commands named test (or
> Nee, for that matter) is like trying to cure a virus with Aspirin.
this is wrong, as it does not take into account the fact that a newcomer
is sometimes accustomed to the DOS way, where
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 10:06, Amir Binyamini wrote:
> I had seen before a recommendion not to use "test" as an executable
> in linux and I am aware of it)
Let's improve this recommendation a bit:
1. If you follow the recommendation *not* to put '.' (the
current directory) in your $PATH.
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 01:04, guy keren wrote:
> 1. never ever ever specify link flags before specifying the list of object
>files. don't ask me why - perhaps this is just a habbit.
Because Unix/Linux linkers are designed to work in a single pass,
so they must collect all the missing symbo
ore dump. It MIGHT been caused because
of the LD_PRELOAD or -Wl,-dynamic-linker flags I had used. But this is less
important now.
Thanks!
Regards.
Amir
From: guy keren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Amir Binyamini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: linux-il@linux.org.il
Subject: Re: A second glibc on Linux
Date:
according to 'linux from scratch', glibc comes with a test suite. did you
run it at all? did you try to see how it compiles its own test programs?
that probably has a rather complete answer...
it also implies that having a 2nd glibc is not enough, and that you need
copies of several other package
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Amir Binyamini wrote:
> I do not have , under/usr/lib/gcc-lib/, a crt1.o (also not a symlink to
> /usr/lib).
> So I used the /usr/lib/crt1.o.
this is exactly what i wrote ('strace' told me this short path in its old
twisted way ;) )
> I use gcc (GCC) 3.2.2on Red Hat 9 ; th
TW, in my tests I did verified by ldd (in cases when compilation
succeeded) that it pointed
to the new glibc)
Any idea?
Regards,
Amir
From: guy keren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Amir Binyamini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: linux-il@linux.org.il
Subject: Re: A second glibc on Linux
Date: Tu
Amir Binyamini wrote:
Hello,
I want to use a second glibc on Linux; mainly for hacking glibc;
I do want to keep the original glibc with came with my distribution.
(Which is RedHat 9)
so that the kenel and apps will still use it.
I have succeeded in building glibc 2.3.2 ; I had installed it to a
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Amir Binyamini wrote:
> I made some tests with setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH and LD_PRELOAD (before
> sending my fisrt post
> in this thread) and they failed; (I had a crash in run time).Again , I
> don't think the details are important because I made many tries and I am not
> an e
have success in compiling and running hello_world with a
new glibc which is installed
in a private (non-system) folder, I will appreciate telling us how.
Regards,
Amir
From: Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Amir Binyamini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: linux-il@linux.org.il
Subject: R
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:38:13AM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> >
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH may be your friend here, as may LD_PRELOAD. These allow
> you to override the default place the system looks for libraries via an
> environment var, which can be set per-process.
What about /lib/ld.so ?
How d
Amir Binyamini wrote:
Hello,
I want to use a second glibc on Linux; mainly for hacking glibc;
I do want to keep the original glibc with came with my distribution.
(Which is RedHat 9)
so that the kenel and apps will still use it.
I have succeeded in building glibc 2.3.2 ; I had installed it to a
Hello,
I want to use a second glibc on Linux; mainly for hacking glibc;
I do want to keep the original glibc with came with my distribution. (Which
is RedHat 9)
so that the kenel and apps will still use it.
I have succeeded in building glibc 2.3.2 ; I had installed it to a private
folder (using
26 matches
Mail list logo
