Michael Stone wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 02:48:52PM +0100, Emil Pedersen wrote: > > I'm still some things that confuses me when putting lsf support on a > > potato system. A accept that you have to (re)compile your program > > against the new libc in order to use files larger than 2GB. But.. > > Trying to add lfs to potato isn't a real good approach. It's going to be > a lot easier to just move to woody if that's something you need.
Running "apt-get dist-upgrade"? Would that realy change/benefit much if there's only one application (the database engine) that needs lsf support? Since it's a server that preferably should be up 24/7 I want to stick to the most stable solution possible. // Emil > > -- > Mike Stone > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
