rtems-4.6pre5 building first time WITH Ada

[Joel Sherrill]

FWIW The RTEMS RPMs are built on a RH 7.3 computer.  I recall
that 7.0 was a compatability bump.  It didn't do particularly
well with older binaries or make it easy to produce ons which
ran on newer OS versions.

--joel

Chris Sparks wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> 
>> That's odd that you have this problem with RH7 [Ed: Chris has pointed out
>> to me that he has RH7] My previous advice assumed you wouldn't
>> otherwise need glibc, as there are still quite a few libc5 systems
>> around.
>>
> I double checked and it is RedHat 7.0.  Do you think I need to upgrade?
> 
>> What does "ldconfig -p" spits out? (wrt libc)
>>
>> I'm using RH7.1 and when I run  "ls -l /lib/libc[.-]*" I get
>>
>> -rwxr-xr-x    2 root     root      5737154 Oct 10  2002 
>> /lib/libc-2.2.4.so
>> lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     root           13 Nov 19  2002 /lib/libc.so.6 ->
>> libc-2.2.4.so
>>
> I saw a whole boat load of references to libc6.  When I went to /lib 
> (not /usr/lib from the previous email
> you sent) I see libc.so.6 which is softlinked to libc-2.1.94.so
> 
>> (and then "strings  /lib/libc-2.2.4.so  | grep -i copyright"
>> shows that this is in fact the (a?) FSF libc.)
>>
> Can't do this now my Linux box hosed.  Seems to be doing this 
> regularly.  Strange.  Reboot and wait....
> 
> Since I don't have 2.2.4 I searched on libc-* and found 2000 as the last 
> year listed
> 
>> I suspect that the symlink shown above isn't on your system,
>> however "rpm -q -f /lib/libc.so.6 " and "rpm -q -f /lib/libc-2.2.4.so"
>> both report each file belong to "glibc-2.2.4-3" (which means it
>> should be there)
>>
> The first shows glibc-2.1.94-3 and the second shows nothing.
> 
>> So you best bet is probably to re-install  glibc-2.2.4-3 from
>> whatever source you got it from. "rpm --install --force 
>> glibc-2.2.4-3.rpm"
>>
> I need to get it then.  Maybe it wasn't a part of RedHat 7.0
> 
>> ps - Not to muddy the waters but, I will anyway:
>>
>> "find /bin -type f -exec ldd {} \; | grep libc"
>> shows that just about everything (in bin) depends on libc.so.6 (rather
>> than directly on libc-2.2.4) so unless you have basic utilities from
>> a different source than I do, it screws up my assumption (again! I've
>> got to stop assuming..), as nothing would work. In any case I'd try
>> reloading the rpm. Otherwise,  I'd see if you can discern if the gdb
>> rpm is looking at the ldconfig cache or a specific fs location to
>> determine if libc.so.6 is there.
>>
> I did that command and got some meaningless stuff (well to me anyway! :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris
> 


-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel at OARcorp.com                 On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available                (256) 722-9985