> well, Slackware 4.0 is libc5 based. it has glibc runtime support, but it > is still libc5 based. personaly I like it this way. I have seen to many > glib 2.1 bugs show up when I am compiling old programs on Caldera 2.2. I > realy dont see the big need for Glibc support other then runtime support. > > feel free to inform me otherwise. For an SMP box you need glibc 2.0 (preferably 2.1) to do threaded programming that will a) work b) use SMP. It depends on your application. libc5 however is dead and unmaintained so the appropriate cautionary notes in that sense apply to some people. - Linux SMP list: FIRST see FAQ at http://www.irisa.fr/prive/mentre/smp-faq/ To Unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe linux-smp" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- linux SMP - slackware or Redhat? Albert J. Kalinin
- Re: linux SMP - slackware or Redhat? Cris Wade
- Re: linux SMP - slackware or Redhat? Swift Kick
- Re: linux SMP - slackware or Redhat? Jorg B.
- Re: linux SMP - slackware or Redhat? Hermann Himmelbauer
- Re: linux SMP - slackware or Redhat? Cris Wade
- Re: linux SMP - slackware or Redhat? Alan Cox
- Re: linux SMP - slackware or Redhat? Sascha Schumann
- Re: linux SMP - slackware or Red... Alan Cox
- Re: linux SMP - slackware or... Sascha Schumann
- Re: linux SMP - slackware or Redhat? Dick Balaska
- Re: linux SMP - slackware or Redhat? Jorg B.
- Re: linux SMP - slackware or Redhat? Matthew Smith
- Re: linux SMP - slackware or Redhat? Alan Cox
- Re: linux SMP - slackware or Redhat? Tim Fletcher
- Re: linux SMP - slackware or Redhat? Ivan Van Laningham
