[ale] libc5 vs libc6

[Nomad the Wanderer]

I moved the /lib/libc.so.5 and it looked happy, except mount wouldn't
run anymore.  I figured that was a bad thing.  I linked libc.so.5 to
libc.so.6 and it reported "sucess", however it wasn't mounting the
filesystems.  When I put the original links back, it worked (and still
is).

Any thoughts?

Sue you?  As many of my stupid questions as you've answered?

Robert

Thus spake Chris Ricker (kaboom at gatech.edu):

> On  3 May, Nomad the Wanderer wrote:
> > Ok,
> >   I've been fighting compiling the xawtv package.  It turns out alot
> > of the problem was that I had a /lib/libc.so.5 and libc.so.6.  When I 
> > moved it out of the way it compiled nicely.  
> > 
> >   I can see that libc.so.6 was installed by glibcs-rpm, but nothing
> > claimes to own libc.so.5.
> > 
> >   My question, how likely am I committing suicide by removing that?
> 
> If you're running a properly configured glibc-based* system, there
> shouldn't be a libc.so.5 in /lib at all.  That would definitely explain
> why you're having compilation problems, and you should be safe deleting
> it.  Just make sure you have a boot method handy and aren't going to
> sue me if I'm wrong ;-).
> 
> *I imagine you installed libc5 by hand on a redhat box once upon a
> time, then later upgraded to 5.0.  Since RPM didn't know about the
> /lib/libc.so.5, it didn't delete it like it normally would have....
> 
> later,
> chris
> 
> --
> Chris Ricker						kaboom at gatech.edu
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Harris            |   Educate the Masses,
Senior System Administrator |      Don't just help them to
  at Great West Life.        \_       Remain ignorant.       

http://www.orci.com/~nomad

DISCLAIMER:
      These are MY OPINIONS ALONE.  I speak for no-one else.

FYI:
 perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);'