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

Re: appchk/libc functions



On Wed, Apr 11, Stuart Anderson wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On the current LSB spec, the rexec() call is sorted under 
> > "Regular expressions". But rexec() is a (I think BSD) function
> > for remote execution and used by the rexec command. This should
> > be fixed.
> 
> I would propose that the function be removed entirely.

Agreed.

> 
> > And I have some curious error messages from appchk:
> > 
> > I get for all applications:
> > - section .sbss is not in the LSB
> 
> When did .sbss get added? What does it do? It's not documented anywhere.

I don't know. I use glibc 2.2 and gcc 2.95.2:

kukuk@allen:/src/cvs/LSB/src/tests > appchk/appchk /bin/more 
Symbol dcgettext used, but not part of LSB
Symbol dcgettext has version GLIBC_2.0 expecting .bss
Symbol setupterm used, but not part of LSB
Symbol fopen has version GLIBC_2.1 expecting 
section .sbss is not in the LSB

> > Then I sometimes get the message that a Symbol has version number
> > GLIBC_2.2, but GLIBC_2.1 is expected (for example for __xstat64).
> 
> This is an interesting result. Is this the only symbol the gives this message?

In the moment I know of (using gcc 2.95.3 and glibc 2.2.2):
readdir64
__xstat64
__fxstat64
getrlimit64
setrlimit64 has version GLIBC_2.1 expecting .bss
mkstemp64

> > I often also get the message, that symbol GLIBC_2.0 was found,
> > but .bss was expecting.
> 
> I think I fixed that last week. Do you have the latest version of the lsbdev
> package?

I have lsbdev-0.7.3-1.i386.rpm


>From lsblibchk, I got:

shellWidgetClass in libX11.so.6 is missing. I cannot find this function
in libX11.so.6 from XFree86 4.0.2 and 4.0.3.

  Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Kukuk       http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/       kukuk@suse.de
SuSE GmbH            Schanzaeckerstr. 10            90443 Nuernberg
Linux is like a Vorlon.  It is incredibly powerful, gives terse,
cryptic answers and has a lot of things going on in the background.



Reply to: