Slashdot Mirror
LibC5, LibC6 and Peaceful Co-Existance
Yet Another Anonymous Coward asks this common question:
"I was just wondering if it is possible to run a Linux
system with both Libc-5 and Libc-6 installed simultaneously?
If so, has anyone had any luck running both with a Slackware
distribution? Where can I find some good HOW-TOs or more
information on installing and running both Libc-5 and
Libc-6 on the same system?" Yes, I know this is a FAQ, but
it's something that WILL be asked. Consistently. So I'm
running this one just to see how MUCH information there
is and whether or not it's useful.
I fubared my install of linuxppc - of course, there may be other dependencies, but I wouldn't suggest trying it. Although it is documented to be possible.
:-(
Jezzball, who forgot his password and no longer has the cookie cuz he reinstalled linuxppc
Check out www.linuxrox.com/software and click "CC & libc". That's how I did it. It works ok.. not the best example on how to do it.. Once in a while when I want to use certain libs (mainly ncurses) I have to define the directory with -L and -I for headers. Just stick with libc5. Wait for slackware to be glibc.. I really regret convertign.. I have to compile everything instead up just using upgradepkg.. Its good to do it yourself.. but gets annoying when you know if you don't upgrade you can use "upgradepkg package.tgz" when a new package comes out..
Caldera's OpenLinux 2.2 has both glibc 2.1 and libc5 installed. You might want to check their distribution to see how they do it.
I've been using Slackware with glibc2 as the primary C library since around glibc-2.0.6. Aside from a few initial problems with utmp/wtmp access, its been running fine.
The lsof utility came in handy when I started picking binaries to recompile (deciding that the ones that are constantly running should probably be first). Doing an lsof | grep libc.so.5 showed which running programs were linked with the old library.
--
Sardu
The issue is surely not really the libc5 and libc6 libraries themselves - a bit of fiddling with LD_LIBRARY_PATH and occasional wrapper scripts sorts that one out. And you can always find out which binaries require which library with ldd. In fact, I have a little perl auditer that tells you just which camp each executable is in.
The issue is really the run-time linker, and compatibility between glibc 2.0 and 2.1 that I can't find a satisfactory solution to, and no discussion I have yet seen has really resolved this one.
Gee.. I always love how people defend certain distros and then bitch when they don't come with c libraries that are up to spec.
Outdated distros give Linux a BAD NAME. I was talking with a professor of mine about considering using Linux and her response was something to the effect of libc5 vs. glibc incompatibilities.
I am sorry to say it folks, but IMHO, libc5 is extremely outdated and we need to get rid of it ASAP. We are now on glibc-2.1 which has some nice features (one of which is better pty support).
I understand that not everyone wants the most cutting-edge stuff on their system, but in case you haven't noticed, there have been some major changes including kernel-2.2.x and glibc-2.1 and the release of GNOME-1.0 (which still needs work, but I'm glad it's official).
Red Hat's latest distro is glibc2.1 based, has the nice new ptys, has gnome included and a bunch of Really Cool Shiznat . Starbuck has a few problems, so I'd probably wait on a production machine, but it is definitely clear (and should be extremely obvious) that the future of Linux is kernel-2.2 and glibc-2.1 (well DUH!).
One of the things I hate about redhat is that you cannot choose to not install libc5 (although you can remove it later if nothing depends on it). However, chances are some stupid ass binary-only POS is libc5 based (ARGH! WP is a good example) so you'll probably have your libc5 compatibility libs around for a while.
And BTW.. RedHat works just fine being glibc based.. why is slack still in the damn dark ages.
Do it. Who in hell needs libc5?
Kill Microsoft? No! Just hire their GUI guys!