[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Termcap and Libc5/6 with Debian Problems...



	I have a binary that is linked with both libc6 and libtermcap2
that I am trying to get running. I tried installing the termcap-compat
debian package, and that provide the binary with the needed libtermcap
library. Unfortuntely, since libtermcap was built and linked using libc5
(as stated in the package description), both libc5 and libc6 end up linked
to my binary when I do a 'ldd' on it (I do have the libc5 package
installed). I am rewarded for my efforts by a segfault of the binary when
I try to run it, which is quite understandable given the two, conflicting,
libcs present.
	The worse news is that I can not recompile the binary, as it is a
commerical product. The product is C/BASE 4GL from Conetic
(www.conectic.com) if any one is interested. It is actually thier demo
version, and I have had the same problems with both thier Eval kit for
RH5.0 and the one for RH5.1.
	Now, how, if possible, can one get this binary running? I imagine
that I need a libtermcap2 built/linked with libc6. Does such a debian
package exists? Or do I need to go find the sources and built it myself?
Or should I just find a RH machine to test out this program? :( Thanks in
adavance for any help!

	PS. This is better than thier previous Eval kit they had up until
just recently... Zmagic binaries linked with libc4! :(

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."                     |
|                                            --- Philippians 1:21 (KJV)    |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Ryan Kirkpatrick  |  Boulder, Colorado  | rkirkpat@nag.cs.colorado.edu  |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               http://www-ugrad.cs.colorado.edu/~rkirkpat/                |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reply to: