Bug 57652

Summary: libc.so.6: version `GCC_3.0' not found (required by XYZ)
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Raw Hide Reporter: Mike Onyskiw <mike.onyskiw>
Component: glibcAssignee: Jakub Jelinek <jakub>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Aaron Brown <abrown>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 1.0CC: fweimer
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2001-12-18 10:17:50 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Mike Onyskiw 2001-12-18 10:17:46 UTC 
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98)

Description of problem:
Number of upgraded programs fail - on a dependency that is not detected at 
installation time? (These include xinetd-2.3.4-0.3, modutils-2.4.12-3, 
less-358-23... from rawhide). Common factor appears to be the above 
comment from libc.so.6, hence report for glibc. (glibc-2.2.4-19.3 just 
upgraded). Downgrading the other packages seems to restore functionality, 
but this is not the easiest thing to do without the functionality in those 
packages :-(

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
glibc-2.2.4-19.3

How reproducible:
Didn't try


Additional info:

Haven't tried to reproduce - not managed to get system back into fully 
working condition yet.

Why any requirement on having a compiler present at all (GCC_3.0)? Or does 
this mean something else?

Pre-existing:
gcc-2.96-85
Upgrades:
kernel-2.4.16-0.13.i686
glibc-2.2.4-19.3.i386
modutils-2.4.12-3
less-358-23
[+ others]

Severity increased because of the lack of pre-warning (other than using 
rawhide!)
Comment 1 Jakub Jelinek 2001-12-18 10:24:16 UTC 
Using rawhide means sufficient warning.
To use packages from rawhide which have been built with gcc 3.1 you need
glibc-2.2.4-20 or later (and be prepared for problems too).
This actual problem is going away with the new eh registry scheme which has
been commited in the last days in gcc and binutils, but it still needs further
testing.
Comment 2 Mike Onyskiw 2001-12-18 11:03:16 UTC 
OK, understand about version of glibc - found 2.2.4-20 on rawhide now I've 
looked more closely :-)

But - why aren't these packages throwing up unresolved dependency warnings on 
installation - unless this relates to the "eh registry" scheme you refer to?

I think I'm more concerned that there is a major requirement change in packages 
compiled with GCC 3.1 that is not reflected in the dependencies in those 
packages?

If that's in hand, then all well and good, but if not - well, it's fairly 
predictable I would guess.

Thanks for the very prompt and well targeted response. I'm impressed.
Comment 3 Jakub Jelinek 2001-12-18 11:07:15 UTC 
rpm until recently limited the versioning checks to GLIBC_ symbols.
New registry functions in glibc have to use GCC_3.0 symbols to be binary
compatible with gcc 3.0 and up.
This is fixed in current rpm version I think and as I said, since new eh
registry scheme uses no registration routines at all, this particular problem
will go away no matter what.