On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:19:07 -0700 Steve Kargl <sgk_at_troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > Are you linking in libc? > > troutmask:kargl[207] nm -D /usr/lib/libc.so | grep fpcl > 000b0040 T __fpclassifyd > 000afff0 T __fpclassifyf > 000b00a0 T __fpclassifyl I think the problem is, that some tools have a problem finding it...: ---snip--- (3) netchild_at_ttyp1 % nm -D /usr/lib/libc.so | grep fpcl nm: /usr/lib/libc.so: No such file or directory (4) netchild_at_ttyp1 % ll /usr/lib/libc.so lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 19B 29 Aug 13:57 /usr/lib/libc.so_at_ -> ../../lib/libc.so.5 (5) netchild_at_ttyp1 % ll /usr lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 7.0B 18 Aug 2001 /usr_at_ -> big/usr (7) netchild_at_ttyp1 % ll /lib/libc.so lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 9.0B 29 Aug 13:57 /lib/libc.so_at_ -> libc.so.5 ---snip--- I think a workaround would be to use absolute symlinks (at least as an option). David O'Brien wrote: > Yes, your libs + binaries are out of sync with each other. > You may also have stale ".so" symlinks in /usr/lib. One gets this if one > runs a certain 4.x binary on 5.1. This was an update of an -current since ever system from Aug 2 src to Aug 28 src. I just tried to recompile cdrdao. Bye, Alexander. -- If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed... ...Oh, wait a minute, he already does. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander _at_ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7Received on Sat Aug 30 2003 - 02:52:59 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:20 UTC