vberon at mecano.gme.usherb.ca
Sat Nov 20 09:23:37 CST 2004
Le sam 20/11/2004 à 08:45, Shachar Shemesh a écrit :
> Vincent Béron wrote:
> >Le ven 19/11/2004 à 09:02, Mike Hearn a écrit :
> >>1) The RH9 RPMs are apparently being compiled with epoll support linked
> >> in. This is causing user pain. We should really be using dlsym here,
> >> why are we not again?
> >If you're talking about this thread
> >(http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=252670), then I didn't reproduce it on my RH9 setup when I released 20041019 (I have a video card fan problem right now, so the video card in that computer is now in my main computer, so I can't test it just right now). I guess the user have a different kernel/glibc than I do (I'm using RH9+updates from RH for RH9+updates from FedoraLegacy for RH9 as of the releases of Wine). The epoll detection/support is not very robust yet it seems.
> It's not that. The problem seems to be that RH updated their glibc major
> version number. Maybe you need to create a dependency in the RPM for a
> specific glibc version (>=2.3?). That's the reason my original epoll
> patch was using syscall, btw.
I remember a glibc update on RH8 which broke binary compatibility for
Wine between before and after the update, but not a similar thing for
Original RH9 glibc is glibc-2.3.2-11.9 (
http://mirrors.kernel.org/redhat/redhat/linux/9/en/os/i386/RedHat/RPMS/glibc-2.3.2-11.9.i386.rpm). Last update from RH is glibc-2.3.2-27.9.7 (http://mirrors.kernel.org/redhat/redhat/linux/updates/9/en/os/i386/glibc-2.3.2-27.9.7.i386.rpm). FedoraLegacy hasn't issued an update to glibc for RH9 yet.
Looks like the same major version number to me (before downloading and
examining the packages)...
More information about the wine-devel