Kevin K wrote: > > On Mar 24, 2007, at 9:05 PM, junk at realtechtalk.com wrote: > >> Karanbir Singh wrote: >>> junk at realtechtalk.com wrote: >>>> I promise not to top post anymore :) >>> >>> Excellent! >>> >>>> Do you know why the problem I'm describing could be happening? >>> >>> its all assumption at this stage since you've not really said what >>> breaks or how it does not work >>> >>>> All other packages I have are i386. >>>> I've taken the binary from bash i386 and I did ldd >>>> I copied all relevant files to the livecd but it only works on i686. >>> >>> What do you really mean by 'it only works with i686' - which part of >>> the livecd is failing ? how did you create this livecd ? what kernel >>> and glibc / init process are you using etc ? >>> >>> - KB >>> >> >> Hi KB >> >> What I've done is taken a generic 2.6.18.3 Kernel and compiled with >> i386 support. >> All I have on the livecd now since I started from scratch is a copy >> of the dev entries in centos. >> >> All the disc does is run init and load bash. The init itself is a >> bash script which just tells /bin/bash to execute >> I have all the .so files as mentioned in my previous e-mails copied >> to the relevant places. >> >> When I run the disc on any i686 machine it works but if I take it to >> an i586 it halts after the kernel loads. >> There is no error message, I can type things but bash never actually >> executed (remember this disc works fine and loads bash like it should >> on an i686 machine). >> >> I am using Centos 4.4 Server CD, it comes standard with an i686 glibc >> installed but I downloaded glibc.i386 >> 2.3.4-2.25 >> and run "rpm -Uvh glibc-rpm.name --force" to install it over top of >> glibc.i686 >> >> I hope that explains it. The bottom line is the disc works on any >> i686 machine but not an i386. >> I almost wonder if somehow some of the i386 glibc .so's are not i386 >> as it claims?\\ > > I've had problems in the past when trying to convert a RHEL > distribution to one that can run on lesser platforms, such as 486s or > Pentiums. Glibcs are not the easiest thing to replace, since you are > normally trying to downgrade them on the fly, so you can't just remove > the old one to ensure it is gone, then install the new one. > > I've seen the /lib/i686 directory being left behind when trying an > upgrade like you listed above, so you may want to check that there > isn't the i686 version of the libs remaining along with the 386 > version. If so, it could be loading that instead, and failing on a > Pentium. > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > Thanks Kevin. I actually extracted the i386 glibc and did a diff (comparing the i386 files I extracted from the RPM to the ones that were actually installed) on all the glibc files I needed to use for bash and they all came back the same. Just to be sure I copied the libc.so.6 i386 file into the tls/i686 directory. I feel strongly that the i386 glibc is not truly i386 unless I'm making a stupid mistake but I've been at this for a few days. I even manually compiled bash using march & mtune i386 flags and it still wouldn't run. It had different dependencies but I copied those too and again it runs on i686. Does anyone know a simple way to build an i386 compatible cd? I suspect my issue is that the i386 glibc is not really i386 Thanks again everyone!