On Wednesday 18 March 2009 23:43:50 Michael P. Soulier wrote: > On 18/03/09 Alan McKinnon said: > > Well, this is gentoo and we don't need no stinking Changelogs on gentoo > > :-) > > > :) > : > > Seriously, you are running a stable arch. All known issues should be > > resolved by the time glibc hits stable. You can always askhere, or look > > at b.g.o for any outstanding issues > > Bulgarian Gay Organization? Sorry, googling for b.g.o is dangerous. :)
hehehe, that's funny :-) bugs.gentoo.org b.g.o. is the common name used around here. Probably not the most obvious thing in the world though [snip] > msoul...@anton:~$ equery belongs /usr/include/linux/quota.h > [ Searching for file(s) /usr/include/linux/quota.h in *... ] > sys-kernel/linux-headers-2.6.23-r3 (/usr/include/linux/quota.h) > > ul...@anton:~$ uname -a > Linux anton 2.6.25-gentoo-r8 #9 Sun Nov 23 19:14:08 EST 2008 i686 AMD > Athlon(tm) XP 1700+ AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux > > So slightly off but compatible. At some point a newer glibc would simply > fail to build if it's incompatible then, I assume? It is as close to guaranteed to build as you are ever going to get. The public interface to the kernel via it's headers simply does not change in incompatible ways. But if it ever did, then yes, glibc would fail to build > Looking on a CentOS box I see that they package that directory in a package > called glibc-kernheaders. Makes sense... > > Thanks, > Mike -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
