From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:58:36 +0100 From: Patrick Caulfield Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Problems with 1.0 Message-ID: <20010817105835.C709@tykepenguin.com> References: <20010817110043.A10370@sistina.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010817110043.A10370@sistina.com>; from mauelshagen@sistina.com on Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 11:00:43AM +0200 Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@sistina.com On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 10:55:35PM -0600, Tren Blackburn wrote: > Hi List; > > I had installed the 1.0 driver into my 2.4.8 kernel, and rebooted. > Everything came up fine, so I installed the user tools and forgot about > them...until I had to reboot this evening...Now the LVM tools are > dynamically linked (Looking for libgcc_s.so.1)? Or so it seems. I am no > a C programmer and don't fully understand how linking works, but it seems > to me that the beta 8 tools were statically linked as they didn't need any > external libraries, but the 1.0 user tools are dynamically linked. libgcc_s.so.1 is new for GCC 3.0. gcc 2 statically linked libgcc. So it looks like maybe you built beta8 with gcc 2 and 1.0 with gcc 3. In any event, as Heinz says, libgcc.so.1 should be in /lib if gcc was correctly installed - though if you are booting from an initrd it may not have found its way onto that. patrick