Re: glibc incompatibilities
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:46:34PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> Adam McKenna <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 04:51:06AM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't imagine there's a workaround for this is there?
> > > Why would the symbol version be missing anyways?
> > >
> > > Unable to load native library: /tmp/OraInstall2002-12-20_04-29-15AM/jre/lib/i386/libjava.so: symbol __libc_wait, version GLIBC_2.0 not defined in file libc.so.6 with link time reference
> > OK, sorry, I'm blind.
> > If you're trying to install Oracle on a sid system, it's not very likely to
> > happen. If you do get it going, I'd be interested in hearing how you did it.
> > Oracle will install on a potato system and I believe will continue to work
> > once the system has been upgraded to woody. But installing on woody or sid
> > is a no-go. If someone knows better than me, then please correct me but this
> > has been my experience.
> It should work. glibc is supposed to offer run-time backwards compatibility.
> Oracle in the past depended on link time compatibility which glibc breaks but
> they have a workaround for that for 8i, I'm not sure if it's needed for 9i
> > You might want to also check out
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=167878
> Which says about the specific problem I reported:
> > > There is also a problem with instalator for oracle 9i - it uses java from=
> > > IBM? with known problem that it uses __glibc_wait symbol. In summary -
> > > oracle9i is uninstallable on sid ( not a big problem ), and= it can't run
> > > with libc2.13 ( BIG problem )
> > This problem will be fixed in -6, I think.
> Ah, thanks. I'm still on -5 which is the most recent I see, I guess it'll be
> up soon.
Yes, in the next day or two.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer