Maybe that bug is caused by a static linking with the libc.
I find this bug report on the debian list : http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=589143#10 The error appears in a same manner and the explanation seems to be clear. (i've found it by reading this bug report : https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/eglibc/+bug/574726)
So, could the binaires provided by Samsung or by tweedledee (http://www.bchemnet.com/suldr/) provide the needed libc version ??
This bug seems to affect many persons. The thread in the ubuntuforums has more than 50 pages ! http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=341621
Maybe that bug is caused by a static linking with the libc.
I find this bug report on the debian list : http:// bugs.debian. org/cgi- bin/bugreport. cgi?bug= 589143# 10 /bugs.launchpad .net/ubuntu/ +source/ eglibc/ +bug/574726)
The error appears in a same manner and the explanation seems to be clear.
(i've found it by reading this bug report : https:/
So, could the binaires provided by Samsung or by tweedledee (http:// www.bchemnet. com/suldr/) provide the needed libc version ??
This bug seems to affect many persons. The thread in the ubuntuforums has more than 50 pages ! ubuntuforums. org/showthread. php?t=341621
http://