Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:28:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, lenzi.sergio@gmail.com Subject: Re: libc version Message-ID: <201206181828.q5IISbt7013745@mail.r-bonomi.com> In-Reply-To: <1340025609.95799.4.camel@z6000.lenzicasa>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Mon Jun 18 08:21:38 2012 > From: Sergio de Almeida Lenzi <lenzi.sergio@gmail.com> > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:20:09 -0300 > Subject: libc version > > Hello... > > I upgrade the server from version 8.2 to 8.3, and rebuild all packages.. > it all works... > > Then I installed a binary package (8.3) in an old 8.2 ... > every package works... gnome, nautilus, wget.... about 800 of them > the only one that does not work is postgesql84-server > when I try to run it it I got the message: > /libexec/ld-elf.so.1: /lib/libc.so.7: version FBSD_1.3 required > by /usr/local/bin/postgres not found > > seems that only postgres is check for the libc version??? INCORRECT. Postgres is jjust the only one of those programs that _requires_ a 'minimum' version level that is newer than the one installed. > is there a compile switch to check for that??? No. > Of course, if I compile postgres in the 8.2 or upgrade to 8.3 it > works... Naturally. "do it right and it will work'. <grin> The required _minimum_ version of a runtime library is specified in the program source code -- because it uses features that did not exist in any version prior to that one. There is *NO* way to tell _at_compile_time_ what version of a runtome library will be present when the program is executed. The 'compiled on 8.3' Postgres binary requires a newer version of libc than exists in 8.2. Compile on 8.2 and it builds using diferent code that does not require the newer libc feature. hence the 8.2-compiled code works on 8.2. The solution to your problem, as you found, is to _not_ use 'more current' binaries in 'down-rev' environments. "upward compatibility" is almost always present in a package. "backward compatibility" is *always* a crap-shoot.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201206181828.q5IISbt7013745>