George Metz wrote:
Why I never went anywhere with mine was mostly because I sent out several
e-mails to this list, and the lack of a response was almost deafening in
it's silence. If I recall, not even you commented David. I assumed that
people had weighed the concept and decided it wasn't
David Douthitt wrote:
Pim van Riezen wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
I must say I've been surprised at all the excitement over Linux
2.4. I've noticed that all of you kernel wizards are scrambling to
get Linux 2.4 installed on LRP, while glibc 2.1 gets ignored.
For me,
On Thu, 17 May 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
Why I never went anywhere with mine was mostly because I sent out several
e-mails to this list, and the lack of a response was almost deafening in
it's silence. If I recall, not even you commented David. I assumed that
people had weighed the
Ewald Wasscher wrote:
David Douthitt wrote:
Pim van Riezen wrote:
if I want to produce binaries I'll have to use three different
environments if I want to cater for all glibc variations. Now that
RH7/glibc2.2 is gaining acceptance that'll be four:
libc5
Is anyone still using
David Douthitt wrote:
I'd vote for 2.2. It may be bigger, but 2.1 will be unmaintained rather
soon I'm afraid. So when we choose for glibc 2.1 we might end up with
the same mess as we have for glibc 2.0 now in a year or so. Unless one
of us is capable of backporting security fixes 2.2 is the
