Re: compatibility libraries.

[Paul Pluzhnikov]

Amit Bhatia <bhatia2@nospam.com> writes:

>  So does that mean that more or less the only way to fix this up is to get
> an executable compatible with RH 9.0s libraries? 

Yes: statically linked executable *in theory* should be completely
stand-alone and not affected by environment changes.

In practice, on Linux statically linked executables do not work
across glibc revisions, yet you can't do anything to fix it, except
installing a system based on the same glibc the exe was linked
against.

> I mean, as you said the
> idea of installing gcc 2.95.3 will be of no use. And I don't think I know
> of a way by which I could make this executable use the other version of
> whatever libraries it needs. 

You can't: the "bad" code is already part of the executable itself;
you can't "take it out".

> Any advice on this or would you say: Get the new compilation. Of course,
> had this been so easy and sure, I would have tried doing this first rather
> than finding roundabout solutions..

If this is a commercial product that you've paid $$ for, demand a
fix or "money back" from the vendor (it often works wonders to
demand money back).

Also note that this product is violating GPL, and the company could
be taken to court.

If this is an "open source" project, then you've got your money's
worth. If you really need this app, rebuild it yourself.

Cheers,
-- 
In order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion.
Remove /-nsp/ for email.