[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fwd: Re: trouble with RTLD_NEXT
- To: CHECKINSTALL <checkinstall-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Fwd: Re: trouble with RTLD_NEXT
- From: olivier fleurigeon <olivier.fleurigeon@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 19:10:16 +0100
- Delivered-to: mailing list checkinstall-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: contact checkinstall-list-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- Organization: CEGEDIM
- Reply-to: olivier.fleurigeon@xxxxxxxxxx
...sorry for the too quick reply...
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: trouble with RTLD_NEXT
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 19:03:40 +0100
From: olivier fleurigeon <olivier.fleurigeon@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Felipe Sanchez <izto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Tuesday 11 December 2001 16:36, you wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, olivier fleurigeon wrote:
> > known trouble ?
> Kind of. When I first downloaded installwatch about a year and a half ago
> I tried to build the included test program, and it failed to run (or even
> to compile, I can't remeber). Installwatch worked ok though, so I forgot
> about the test program.
> Actually this is the first time I think about it in a long time!
> Maybe it'd be a good idea to fix the test program. I'll do it if I have
> the time to do it. Anyone is welcome to make a fix, however :)
hum... i think that it is a true bug in libc.
it happens precisely because the symbol does not exist :|
i began to correct this ensuring that the symbol __installwatch_refcount is
always defined, and i will post an awful patch on thursday (electronically