Baslinux mailing list

[sindi keesan <keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org>]

> I can't see any reason not to upgrade to SW91 glibc.  How did they
> actually get it smaller?
I found a reason.  The lynx that I compiled completely statically (on a 
computer with SW81 glibcso and SW71 full glibc), which works offline with 
BL3 but not online, does the same now with SW91 glibc and cxxlibs.

Not a dynamically compiled executable so why won't it work with any 
glibc-so except the one that was on the computer when I compiled it? I 
think it works with original BL2 (SW71 glibcso) and I know it does with 
SW81 glibcso.

I tried to put back SW81 glibcso and it won't go.
Downgrading libraries appears to be impossible.  I could copy over all the 
so files from another computer and run ldconfig, I suppose.

ld-linux.so.2 - GLIBC_PRIVATE not found.  required by /lib/libc.so.6
which is statically linked.  What is GLIBC_PRIVATE?

linuxpackages.net has it for SW91 and not for SW81.  2.8.5rel 1 Feb 2004 
is still the latest release.

David, do you have time to download my lynx package and figure this out? 
Why would a statically compiled version work only with glibc 2.2.5 and 
nothing older OR newer when it has no dependencies?

I think I should not compile statically, a lot of problems and no 
advantage except to other people.  And not even that in this case.

Kermit and links and opera work.