Glenn M. Lewis wrote:
> OK, I found a fully-built version of GCC 3.3 on the system so I did this:
> 
> % echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH /usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib:/lib
> 
> Now, I try to run 'dmd':
> % dmd
> dmd: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found (required by dmd)
> % ldd dmd/bin/dmd
> dmd/bin/dmd: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found (required by
> dmd/bin/dmd)
> libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x40018000)
> libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x400cf000)
> libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x4020e000)
> libgcc_s.so.1 => /usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x40231000)
> /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
> 
> OK, so I'm stuck again.  Any ideas?
> -- Glenn
> 

Ah, so you have a 3.3 on your system.  You'll have to make sure you've got (or compiled) a recent glibc (the Gnu C library) to go with it (I believe it's separate from the gcc distribution).  It doesn't appear you do for some reason.  Since you are using an old Redhat distribution (7), it's likely that only an old glibc version is present.  Having gcc 3.3 installed doesn't guarantee that a newer glibc is installed also.

As to how to get an updated glibc, I'm sure there's a rpm package somewhere that can be downloaded for Redhat.  Might be a good time for google.  Sorry, I don't have any links at present.

Good luck,

John

Glenn M. Lewis wrote:
> OK, I found a fully-built version of GCC 3.3 on the system so I did this:
> 
> % echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH /usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib:/lib
> 
> Now, I try to run 'dmd':
> % dmd
> dmd: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found (required by dmd)
> % ldd dmd/bin/dmd
> dmd/bin/dmd: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found (required by
> dmd/bin/dmd)
> libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x40018000)
> libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x400cf000)
> libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x4020e000)
> libgcc_s.so.1 => /usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x40231000)
> /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
> 
> OK, so I'm stuck again.  Any ideas?
> -- Glenn
>

Just curious... how did you activate gcc 3.3 as the primary gcc for the system.  Did you have to install it?  I don't see how you did so above.

The dmd program obviously has dependencies for some basic "recent" libraries.  Some of these come with the gcc installation.  Others may have to be installed separately (like glibc, I think).  If you can find a way to fulfill those dmd dependencies like Bastiaan suggested, you should be able to get it working.  It's still not clear which gcc version is active when you are executing dmd.

Sorry that I can't help more.  Ferreting out these dependency issues sometimes can be quite confusing.

Why dont you update to Red Hat 9? Or
Fedora Core 2?

Using Red Hat 7 is like people using Win 95.


"Glenn M. Lewis" <Glenn_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cj26m5$jf5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I believe the distribution is RedHat 7, although I could easily be
mistaken.
> I've got 3 flavors of gcc available to me:
> % which6 gcc
> /usr/site/bin/gcc
> /usr/bin/gcc
> /usr/local/bin/gcc
> % /usr/site/bin/gcc --version
> gcc (GCC) 3.1
> Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
> warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
>
> % /usr/bin/gcc --version
> 2.96
> % /usr/local/bin/gcc --version
> 2.7.2.3
>
> It looks like maybe I should build my own private version of gcc 3.4. -- Glenn
>
> >Which gcc version are you using?  Open a command prompt and type gcc --version.
> >
> >This may be important to know.  Anything 3.4'ish seems to need a c++ compatibility library compiled in separately to support compilation of pre-3.4 based c++ programs.  I'm not quite sure of the specifics of this issue, but I've had it happen before, I think.  I just can't remember how I fixed it.
> >
> >At the very least, though, in order to get to the bottom of the issue, you'll have to give a little more information: linux distribution, gcc version, etc.
> >
> >Later,
> >
> >John
>
>

Phill wrote:
> Why dont you update to Red Hat 9? Or
> Fedora Core 2?

Yip, DMD works fine on FC2. Using KDevelop for the IDE :] Heh, I'm actually playing with that stuff thru VNC :>

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:41:43 +1000, Phill wrote:

> Why dont you update to Red Hat 9? Or
> Fedora Core 2?
> 
> Using Red Hat 7 is like people using Win 95.

don't say that.
windows was trash until windows 2000 (I never used NT)

I've been using linux since 1.xx with great satisfaction, and that is before Red Hat was even around.

right now I have slackware 9.0 beta and no reason to
upgrade (10.0 is out - at least).
I did upgrade, X11, the gcc, GTK...

every couple of years I try the redhat distribution but I've always went back to slackware.

Ant

In article <pan.2004.09.25.02.14.46.891155@yahoo.ca>, Ant says...
>
>windows was trash until windows 2000 (I never used NT)

NT 3.51 was pretty nice for a server OS.  Everything went through an emulation layer so it was darn near impossible to crash.  Obviously, this also hurt performance which is why they dropped the feature in NT4.  Though I can't remember offhand if early versions of NT needed a reboot when patches were applied.  Still, I'd have picked OS/2 over NT any day ;)


Sean

Ant wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:41:43 +1000, Phill wrote:
> 
> 
>>Why dont you update to Red Hat 9? Or
>>Fedora Core 2?
>>
>>Using Red Hat 7 is like people using Win 95.
> 
> 
> don't say that.
> windows was trash until windows 2000 (I never used NT)

Heh, yeah, that's true.  The analogy doesn't apply to Linux in quite the same way.  Linux has always been powerful, yet still only popular to a certain type of computer user.

> I've been using linux since 1.xx with great satisfaction,
> and that is before Red Hat was even around.

Same here (well, off and on).  I actually started playing with it pre 1.0.  But I can't say that I've used Linux with great satisfaction all these years; although, it is beginning to grow on me again.  Back then it was a novelty, as well as a desperate attempt to escape the limitations of the 16-bit DOS world.  I was incensed that the computer world was being handicapped by a monopoly of 16-bit software even though 32-bit 386's were the norm back then.  Linux satisfied the craving for true 32-bit at the time, but I eventually got frustrated with complexities of administering the system.  Today Linux is still complicated and administration of it remains tedious, yet the application base now available makes using it much more worthwhile. Also, by now, I've learned enough about Linux to keep moderately out of trouble :-(.  I still think that Linux suffers from a nasty case of script bloat, but I guess that's the way of the *nix.  I still rate reading Linux scripts as one of the most confusing activities in computerdom.

> right now I have slackware 9.0 beta and no reason to
> upgrade (10.0 is out - at least).
> I did upgrade, X11, the gcc, GTK...

I started out with slackware in the pre 1.x era.  I think it was one of the earliest of distributions available.  I liked it back then, but haven't used it for many years now.

> every couple of years I try the redhat distribution but
> I've always went back to slackware.
> 
> Ant
> 

I've tried Redhat periodically as well.  You can't really go wrong with it, but I've found that I prefer to have a little more elbow room in a linux system.  Gentoo has been my system of choice for the last couple of years.  I've also tried Mandrake; it seems to be improving, but I found earlier systems too buggy, so I've been hesitant to keep trying more recent releases.

How's that for off topic!

- John

Sean Kelly wrote:
> In article <pan.2004.09.25.02.14.46.891155@yahoo.ca>, Ant says...
> 
>>windows was trash until windows 2000 (I never used NT)
> 
> 
> NT 3.51 was pretty nice for a server OS.  Everything went through an emulation
> layer so it was darn near impossible to crash.  Obviously, this also hurt
> performance which is why they dropped the feature in NT4.  Though I can't
> remember offhand if early versions of NT needed a reboot when patches were
> applied.  Still, I'd have picked OS/2 over NT any day ;)
> 
> 
> Sean
> 
> 

OS/2 was cool for it's time.  I'd have preferred it too if hadn't been so expensive.  I used it up until OS/2 Warp 4.  The most undelightful memory surrounding my OS/2 experience was the $450 CAN price tag (I still can't believe I spent that much on it!)

BTW... eComStation still trys to carry the OS/2 banner onward...

Later,

John

"Ant" <duitoolkit@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:pan.2004.09.25.02.14.46.891155@yahoo.ca...
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:41:43 +1000, Phill wrote:
>
> > Why dont you update to Red Hat 9? Or
> > Fedora Core 2?
> >
> > Using Red Hat 7 is like people using Win 95.
>
> don't say that.
> windows was trash until windows 2000 (I never used NT)

Sorry I will put it another way.
The later versions of Windows are a better form
of trash than the older ones :o))
Also the later versions of Red Hat are better than
previous ones, I dont see why one would prefer to stick
with version 7.

I am not even sure that Windows is trash, I only like
to use Linux because there are more toys :o))

> I've been using linux since 1.xx with great satisfaction, and that is before Red Hat was even around.
>
> right now I have slackware 9.0 beta and no reason to
> upgrade (10.0 is out - at least).
> I did upgrade, X11, the gcc, GTK...

I havent tried Slackware.

Phill.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:14:48 -0400, Ant wrote:

>  and no reason to
> upgrade (10.0 is out - at least).

You'll change your tune once you try Gentoo!

Mwahahahaha!