David:
Just wanted to add uLibC as an option too for
ES3/Dachstein. :)
IMHO, picking one seems, in a way, like more work
than "simply" re-compiling the packages.
-Scott
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> This is interesting...
>
> I've not heard whether Eigerstein is going to go to a new glibc (2.1 or
> 2.2). glibc 2.0 is obsolete, and 2.1 is already deprecated and
> obsolete.
>
> As a packager, I'm not interested in trying to shoehorn a glibc-2.2
> binary into a glibc 2.0 system, especially when the program wasn't
> designed to compile under glibc 2.0.
>
> These days, my compiles (for packages) go like this:
>
> 1. Compile against glibc 2.0
> 2. If errors encountered, compile against glibc 2.1
>
> There's just not enough time in the day to haggle over every little
> error...
>
> Here are my questions (direct and to the point :-)
>
> 1. Is Eigerstein (or Dachstein) going to upgrade to a new version of
> glibc?
> 2. Is LRP likely to upgrade to a new version of glibc?
> 3. What is your opinion: is compiling against glibc 2.0 worth the
> trouble? Or should everyone migrate their packages to glibc 2.1 or 2.2?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leaf-devel mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
