|
|
On 15 Jul., 06:49, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov-...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Do "readelf -V Onno" -- this should tell you which minimum version
> of glibc you require.
onno@diden:~> readelf -V Onno
Version symbols section '.gnu.version' contains 126 entries:
Addr: 0000000000401a0c Offset: 0x001a0c Link: 6 (.dynsym)
000: 0 (*local*) 2 (GLIBC_2.2.5) 2 (GLIBC_2.2.5) 2
(GLIBC_2.2.5)
<snip>
similar lines with max version 2.3
</snip>
Version needs section '.gnu.version_r' contains 2 entries:
Addr: 0x0000000000401b08 Offset: 0x001b08 Link to section: 7
(.dynstr)
000000: Version: 1 File: ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 Cnt: 1
0x0010: Name: GLIBC_2.3 Flags: none Version: 4
0x0020: Version: 1 File: libc.so.6 Cnt: 2
0x0030: Name: GLIBC_2.3 Flags: none Version: 3
0x0040: Name: GLIBC_2.2.5 Flags: none Version: 2
> According to distrowatch.com, SuSE 10.3
> shipped with glibc-2.6.1. That is *very* new, and your binary is
> quite likely to require at least glibc-2.4,
Above output doesn't look like that.
> AFAICT, SuSE 10 shipped with glibc-2.3.5.
That's true.
> The fact that you can run
> on SuSE 10.0 means you don't have any dependencies on glibc-2.4,
> but that may be just by luck; you can't count on that.
But readelf would tell me if I start to get such dependencies,
wouldn't it?
|
|