RE: Netgroups and Slackware 9.1 - Slackware

This is a discussion on RE: Netgroups and Slackware 9.1 - Slackware ; All, I have a problem getting slackware 9.1 to work with NIS Netgroups/ LDAP. I believe that the issues resides in the GLIBC implmentation (2.3.2), but I wanted to know if anyone else has had this issue or knows about ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: RE: Netgroups and Slackware 9.1

  1. RE: Netgroups and Slackware 9.1

    All,

    I have a problem getting slackware 9.1 to work with NIS Netgroups/
    LDAP. I believe that the issues resides in the GLIBC implmentation
    (2.3.2), but I wanted to know if anyone else has had this issue or
    knows about this being resolved in a newer version of GLIBC (2.3.4 or
    5).

    Is it possible to upgrade the GLIBC on a box, without having to
    recompile all apps against the new lib? My assumption is not and that
    changing/upgrading glibc would equal upgrade of everything.




    Any feedback would be great !!!


  2. RE: Netgroups and Slackware 9.1

    justin.buhler@gmail.com wrote:
    > I have a problem getting slackware 9.1 to work with NIS Netgroups/ LDAP.
    > I believe that the issues resides in the GLIBC implmentation (2.3.2),
    > but I wanted to know if anyone else has had this issue or knows about
    > this being resolved in a newer version of GLIBC (2.3.4 or 5).


    I have had no problems to use netgroups distributed by NIS in Slackware
    9.1 machines. I have NFS servers running Slackware 9.1. Those servers
    export disks to netgroups taken from NIS. However, I don't use LDAP in any
    way for this. What is your problem?

    > Is it possible to upgrade the GLIBC on a box, without having to
    > recompile all apps against the new lib? My assumption is not and that
    > changing/upgrading glibc would equal upgrade of everything.


    I once did try to upgrade glibc. I will never try it again. It was a long
    time ago, maybe it was on Slackware 3.1. But still, instead of trying to
    upgrade only glibc I would try to upgrade the entire distribution.

    regards Henrik
    --
    The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
    hc1(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
    root@localhost postmaster@localhost


+ Reply to Thread