This is the mail archive of the
glibc-linux@ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu
mailing list for the glibc project.
RE: Error 127 in install of glibc 2.2.3
- To: <glibc-linux at ricardo dot ecn dot wfu dot edu>
- Subject: RE: Error 127 in install of glibc 2.2.3
- From: "Kate Ahrens" <kate dot ahrens at unisonfree dot net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:37:08 +0100
- Reply-To: glibc-linux at ricardo dot ecn dot wfu dot edu
Hi Allin,
> -----Original Message-----
> [make install process]
> > mv -f /lib/libc-2.2.3.so.new /lib/libc-2.2.3.so
> > rm -f /lib/ld-linux.so.2
> > ln -s ld-2.2.3.so /lib/ld-linux.so.2
> > make[2]: ln: Command not found
>
> That's bad right there, ln not found. Should be in /bin.
Yeah, it is. But make can't find it anymore. I had assumed this was because
the ld-linux.so.2 smlink no longer exists and make needs it?
>
> > rm? It does an 'rm' on one of the existing library files? Why?
> > Every document I've read about this upgrade says don't rm files,
> > but replace symlinks by doing ln -sf instead.
>
> It's logically equivalent: the "-f" flag to ln says, remove the
> link target first.
My linux books say to always use ln -sf when working with libraries and
links because of the danger that rm will remove a library that is essential
to the rebuilding of the link.
What I am wondering now is (a) why has no-one else experienced this error,
if it is as simple as it seems to be on my system, and (b) might I be better
off just downloading glibc 2.2.4 and starting again? I'm bemused that the
whole of the install process (including make check) went OK, and then the
install crashed anyway. How do I know that this won't just happen again with
2.2.4?
Is there an rpm of 2.2.3 or 2.2.4 that I might be better off with - I fear I
am out of my (shallow depth) with this stuff...
Thanks,
Nick