[ut2004] ./ut2004-bin: error while loading shared libraries: libstdc++.so.5

Spike spike at spykes.net
Tue Jun 21 04:18:19 EDT 2005

I hear ya, on my system I have 2 of these libs.

/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.3 (GCC 3.4)


/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5.0.6 (GCC 3.3)

I upgraded my compiler on my slackware install one day and it removed
the latter and all hell broke loose. So i had to grab this file and
place it manually back in place in order to use my new compiler and
keep my system in one piece. What a mess it was.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:15:15 -0700
Peter Hoff <petehoff at pacbell.net> wrote:

> Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
> >>A lot of people don't need or want what's in the compat package. If it's 
> >>extraneous in many cases, why leave it in?
> >>    
> >
> >Because it's about %0.00000001 the size of, say, OpenOffice, so it's not
> >exactly hogging disk space, and it removes the burden of unnecessary bug
> >reports from both Fedora maintainers and third-party developers like
> >myself that, unlike myself, don't know how to solve that problem quickly
> >and may even go so far as to believe it's their bug.
> >
> >Sounds like a great reason to put that in the default install for
> >everyone involved.
> >
> >--ryan.
> >
> >
> >  
> I understand your point, but there is certainly a vocal class of Linux 
> user who doesn't believe in hanging on to "obsolete" stuff. I can't say 
> I fully understand it myself, but I think it's at the core of why Linux 
> doesn't yet have a way of gracefully handling multiple versions of the 
> same dynamic library.
> And yeah, I fully sympathize with your situation. I'm sure you're plenty 
> frustrated with the "why don't you just recompile against the new 
> version" responses you've no doubt recieved. But, at least someone 
> provided a compat patch...

More information about the ut2004 mailing list