Previously Joel Klecker wrote: > No it shouldn't, I was in error for including ldd in libc6 on i386. > glibc 2.0 ldd can't fully replace to one from ld.so because it > doesn't support libc4 binaries (I am dubious on the importance of > that, however). glibc 2.1's ldd can, and it will replace ldso's ldd. Thanks for clearing that up. The only difference I noted so far was that ldd suddenly started complaining that my libraries were not executable. Will that be fixed with glibc 2.1? Wichert. -- ============================================================================== This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: wakkerma@cs.leidenuniv.nl WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
Attachment:
pgpTWtIW0mrOb.pgp
Description: PGP signature