begin quoting Rachel Garrett as of Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 12:50:32AM -0700: > On 3/21/05, Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > begin quoting Todd Walton as of Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:10:01PM -0800: > > > I haven't had a dependencies problem for some four years now. > > What about caffeine? I suffer from that problem. It wasn't listed in the 'addictive drug' category when I was growing up, so I didn't try to avoid it...
> > For some reason, to compile the latest Glibc, you *must* be running a > > 2.6 kernel. Upgrade, or go away. > > FINALLY! Thanks. Heh. You're welcome. > I have been trying to compile Glibc 2.3.5 for a few > hours, seeing all kinds of exotic error messages, patiently pasting > the error message text into Google to see what comes up. Every error I > get rid of, a new one takes its place. I was going to post a message > to the KPLUG list, asking for help on this, but I did a search for > "glibc" first, and found this post. It's a very annoying problem. > Is it "official" that you have to be running a 2.6 kernel to compile > Glibc, or is that just what people have figured out from trying it on > everything else? In all of the Glibc documentation I read, I missed > that warning. I did not see anything in the glibc documentation when I (briefly) searched. However, from the articles that I found, those who "understood" the problem considered it an obvious dependency. (I consider it something of a failure for a library to depend on the kernel -- not the kernel headers, or the compiler version, but the running kernel -- but I ascribe to the 'minimize coupling' philosophy, so I'm an oddball.) -Stewart "Maximize Cohesion, Minimize Coupling, Think Modular" Stremler
pgpEGv93QVaMb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
