/lib symlinks problem? (was: Re: __fpclassifyd)

[Christoph P. Kukulies]

I found the problem with my system here:

I had a libc.so.5 in /usr/lib  of Jan 16. Concurrently
the newly installed libc.so.5 lives in /lib.

After removing /usr/lib/libc.so.5 the binary (httpd)
worked.


On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 01:54:27PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> 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@ -> ../../lib/libc.so.5
> 
> (5) netchild at ttyp1 % ll /usr 
> lrwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  7.0B 18 Aug  2001 /usr@ -> 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@ -> 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.
>