Bug 115374 - httpd won't start because apr is linked to glibc 2.3.3
httpd won't start because apr is linked to glibc 2.3.3
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: apr (Show other bugs)
i386 Linux
medium Severity high
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Joe Orton
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2004-02-11 11:44 EST by Patrick Mairif
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:10 EST (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2004-02-11 11:52:07 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Patrick Mairif 2004-02-11 11:44:23 EST
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1)

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

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

How reproducible:

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 11:52:07 EST
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 12:03:52 EST
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 12:17:58 EST
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.