Originally Posted by NiLuJe
@twobob: Note that the ld-linux issue probably has *zero* relation the the kernel headers you used in your TC. It's related to the *glibc* version you built your stuff against (and more specifically, to the glibc version you're *loading* with a loader from an *older* glibc).
(In case I wasn't clear earlier, ld-linux.so.3 is a symlink to ld-N.NN.so, where N.NN is the glibc version, and isn't the same thing as ld, the binary. ld-linux is the loader, it's a part of the glibc. ld the binary is the linker, it's a part of binutils).
err yeah. I was only demonstrating a failing binary. ld was just the example of something failing. sorry if that wasn't clear. bad example. It just had a nice obvious and predicatable fail sequence. Doh. apologies.
That said, I didn't actually know that exact roles as you just described, but as ld-linux is actually ON the system and ld is something the 'install' brought to the party I figured as much. Coupled with a lack of 'ld' on the system I figured it must be an autotools thingy and not to do with the loading. So err yeah I knew that. Kinda. In my own mangled way.
ld-2.3.6.so and ld-linux.so.3 are the ones in /mnt/us/lib
ld-2.5.so and ld-linux.so.3 are the ones in /lib : (
sigh. Just when I thought I had that issue put to bed : )
Do I really have to downgrade my OS version one step.
I have heard horror stories about rolling back version of gcc (okay it was on gentoo where that stuff really matters) so err... err.. yeah. any thoughts?
Hokay, I'll go check out how to install that? Curse my feeble mind.
okay well Ill try knc's way but it would be nice to make EXACTLY the right things if I am to make this stuff available for reference. Ta all.
The tea was lovely btw.