Free Downloads, Community Forum,
FAQs and Developer Resources


Make /Tools Your Home | Link to us

Today's posts | Posts since last visit | Most Active Topics

All Forums Register Login Search Subscriptions My Profile Inbox
Tool Warehouse FAQs Resources Help Member List Address Book Logout

RE: R2 compatibility with 3.5 utils

  		Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [SFU / Interix / SUA Technology] >> Windows Server 2003 R2 SUA >> RE: R2 compatibility with 3.5 utils Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: R2 compatibility with 3.5 utils - Jan. 10, '06, 10:34:06 AM   
gwojan

 

Posts: 19
Joined: Apr. 28, '04,
Status: offline 		I don't want to speak for Rodney, but the only situation I can see this happening is if Microsoft simply repackaged the old RC tools. If that was truly the situation I would expect a checksum to be different even though the files are the same. Of course, all this comes from the perfect little confines of the "Greg Universe" and applying "Greg logic" so in the end I don't know a damn thing...

The big question that I still have is what breaks? Is it the current distro of the Interop Tools on RTM SUA. Is it the Microsoft tools package on SUA with Interop? I'm sort of confused.

For my uses on XP the Interop Tools on SFU 3.5 seem to work very well. However, we have a number of servers to be deployed with R2 in the next month or so and I really don't want to lose my favorite tools.

At this point I'm just too darned lazy to break a properly functioning box. Maybe I'll have to fire up a VMware session and give it a whirl.

--Greg

(in reply to breiter)
Post #: 21
RE: R2 compatibility with 3.5 utils - Jan. 10, '06, 11:15:17 AM   
breiter

 

Posts: 300
Joined: Jun. 14, '04,
From: Washington, DC
Status: online 		Actually, the self-extracting EXE has a cryptographic signature on it with a signing time of Thursday, September 08, 2005 7:39:23 AM. I don't think it is a repackaging of the same files, but actually the same bits verbatim, like Dr. Pizza said. Seems like a goof.

(in reply to gwojan)
Post #: 22
RE: R2 compatibility with 3.5 utils - Jan. 10, '06, 1:22:36 PM   
Rodney

 

Posts: 2949
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline 		> I think Dr. Pizza might be on to something. The file create timestamps are all Tuesday, Sept 06, 2005

oh, okay.
The download I find has a message about being "updated April 29, 2005" (which is also an odd date).
That's off the R2 download site at:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/R2/unixcomponents/webinstall.mspx

Which page were you guys looking at?

(in reply to breiter)
Post #: 23
RE: R2 compatibility with 3.5 utils - Jan. 10, '06, 2:21:49 PM   
gwojan

 

Posts: 19
Joined: Apr. 28, '04,
Status: offline 		Click through that link. The file download WAS dated September 9 or something like that. I just looked and that page now says Date Published: 1/9/2006.

--Greg

(in reply to Rodney)
Post #: 24
RE: R2 compatibility with 3.5 utils - Jan. 10, '06, 2:35:19 PM   
gwojan

 

Posts: 19
Joined: Apr. 28, '04,
Status: offline 		I just downloaded the file and all the files in the archive are dated 1/5 to 1/7/2006.

I looked at the setup.htm and at the very end there is something about updating the beta2 SDK to RC0. I hope that's just a simple oops. I wish I had some of the other "versions" of the archive so I could compare files...

(in reply to Rodney)
Post #: 25
RE: R2 compatibility with 3.5 utils - Jan. 10, '06, 5:55:59 PM   
breiter

 

Posts: 300
Joined: Jun. 14, '04,
From: Washington, DC
Status: online
quote:

I just downloaded the file and all the files in the archive are dated 1/5 to 1/7/2006.

Something weird is going on here. I have downloaded this for the 3rd time today and gotten the old file.
Here's the MS Downloads page I get for the utilities and sdk which is dated 1/9/2006.
Here's the link I get to the x86 binary.

% md5 "Utilities and SDK for UNIX-based Applications_X86.exe"
MD5 (Utilities and SDK for UNIX-based Applications_X86.exe) = d4f78d8a273b7393cd08daabd053fb3e
% sha1 "Utilities and SDK for UNIX-based Applications_X86.exe"
SHA1 (Utilities and SDK for UNIX-based Applications_X86.exe) = 32eabb8ee243b4580c7be2084ad2acf301354a1f

The cryptographic signature on the file is dated "Thursday, September 08, 2005 7:39:23 AM" and all of the files contained in the archive are dated earlier in September 2005.

I have to admit that I've lost that gung-ho feeling since Rodney says the current Interix 5.2 has a defect that prevents binaries that *.so.3.5 dependencies from loading their shared libraries.

(in reply to gwojan)
Post #: 26
RE: R2 compatibility with 3.5 utils - Jan. 11, '06, 12:41:36 AM   
gwojan

 

Posts: 19
Joined: Apr. 28, '04,
Status: offline 		This is the MD5 digest for the file I downloaded:

0D07761F26A6229970AC9F4DC1670401 Utilities and SDK for UNIX-based Applications_X86.exe

--Greg

(in reply to breiter)
Post #: 27
RE: R2 compatibility with 3.5 utils - Jan. 11, '06, 11:08:41 AM   
Rodney

 

Posts: 2949
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline 		I remember back when SFU 3.5 was released there were cache servers that still had SFU 3.0
as the file to download. It took a few days for things to sync. Perhaps something like this
is happening again? Maybe the operative thing is to wait a couple of days?

(in reply to gwojan)
Post #: 28
RE: R2 compatibility with 3.5 utils - Jan. 16, '06, 6:12:24 PM   
DrPizza

 

Posts: 30
Joined: Mar. 27, '03,
Status: offline 		Any update on getting this thing fixed?

(in reply to Rodney)
Post #: 29
RE: R2 compatibility with 3.5 utils - Jan. 18, '06, 5:09:32 PM   
Rodney

 

Posts: 2949
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline 		The Word from the development group is that the SDK update has the last week
has the fixes to the 3.5 shared libraries for loading on 5.2 (SUA). I haven't
tried it myself.

Do not copy the libc.so 3.5 library from the SFU 3.5 release to 5.2; just use the
one that comes with the 5.2 SDK (I don't know who would actually do this, but...).
Personal libraries (such as in the /Tools packages) should load fine when built on 3.5
and run on 5.2.

No explanation about what happened between R0 and RTM of 5.2 so I can't tell the wondering masses :-)

(in reply to DrPizza)
Post #: 30
RE: R2 compatibility with 3.5 utils - Jan. 18, '06, 6:41:38 PM   
breiter

 

Posts: 300
Joined: Jun. 14, '04,
From: Washington, DC
Status: online 		I just tried downloading it again. This time, I got a file with an md5 of "
0D07761F26A6229970AC9F4DC1670401", just like gowjan. It has a timestamp on its cryptographic signature of Saturday, January 07, 2006 5:45:08 AM and it looks like the files were compiled on the 6th.

Is this the version that has working .so.3.5 shared libs?

(in reply to Rodney)
Post #: 31
RE: R2 compatibility with 3.5 utils - Jan. 18, '06, 9:27:56 PM   
Rodney

 

Posts: 2949
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline 		Yes, the libc.so* files (3.5 and 5.2) should all have 6/Jan/2006 timestamps.

(in reply to breiter)
Post #: 32
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [SFU / Interix / SUA Technology] >> Windows Server 2003 R2 SUA >> RE: R2 compatibility with 3.5 utils Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Search All Forums -

Advanced search


SPONSORS

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI

0.063