Bug 115374 - httpd won't start because apr is linked to glibc 2.3.3
Summary: httpd won't start because apr is linked to glibc 2.3.3
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: apr
Version: 1
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
medium
high
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Joe Orton
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2004-02-11 16:44 UTC by Patrick Mairif
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:10 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-02-11 16:52:07 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Patrick Mairif 2004-02-11 16:44:23 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1)
Gecko/20030225

Description of problem:
# /etc/init.d/httpd start
httpd starten: /usr/sbin/httpd: relocation error:
/usr/lib/libapr-0.so.0: symbol sys_siglist, version GLIBC_2.3.3 not
defined in file libc.so.6 with link time reference

# rpm -q apr apr-util httpd glibc
apr-0.9.4-2
apr-util-0.9.4-2
httpd-2.0.48-1.2
glibc-2.3.2-11.9


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
apr-0.9.4-2

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. install mentioned rpms
2. try to start httpd

    

Actual Results:  mentioned error-message

Expected Results:  no error-message and a running apache

Additional info:

the original installation was a redhat 9, several rpms were updated
from fedora core 1. No force-option was used with rpm and all
dependencies are resolved.

Comment 1 Joe Orton 2004-02-11 16:52:07 UTC
You should either update to the Fedora Core 1 glibc, or rebuild the
apr and httpd source packages on RHL9.

Comment 2 Patrick Mairif 2004-02-11 17:03:52 UTC
already tried to rebuild, it does not solve the problem.

I will try to install the glibc-2.3.2-101 from FC1. nevertheless is
there a missing dependency in the rpm!

Comment 3 Joe Orton 2004-02-11 17:17:58 UTC
The automatic dependency detection can only do so much: there are some
edge cases that aren't handled, like this.  In general, taking binary
RPMs built for one release and using them on an older release will not
work.  In theory the dependencies will reflect that, in practice they
may not.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.