David Douthitt wrote:
>>I'd vote for 2.2. It may be bigger, but 2.1 will be unmaintained rather
>>soon I'm afraid. So when we choose for glibc 2.1 we might end up with
>>the same mess as we have for glibc 2.0 now in a year or so. Unless one
>>of us is capable of backporting security fixes 2.2 is
Ewald Wasscher wrote:
>
> David Douthitt wrote:
>
> >Pim van Riezen wrote:
> >>if I want to produce binaries I'll have to use three different
> >>environments if I want to cater for all glibc variations. Now that
> >>RH7/glibc2.2 is gaining acceptance that'll be four:
> >>
> >> libc5
> Is any
On Thu, 17 May 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> > Why I never went anywhere with mine was mostly because I sent out several
> > e-mails to this list, and the lack of a response was almost deafening in
> > it's silence. If I recall, not even you commented David. I assumed that
> > people had weighed
David Douthitt wrote:
>Pim van Riezen wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
>>
>>>I must say I've been surprised at all the excitement over Linux
>>>2.4. I've noticed that all of you kernel wizards are scrambling to
>>>get Linux 2.4 installed on LRP, while glibc 2.1 gets igno
George Metz wrote:
> Why I never went anywhere with mine was mostly because I sent out several
> e-mails to this list, and the lack of a response was almost deafening in
> it's silence. If I recall, not even you commented David. I assumed that
> people had weighed the concept and decided it wasn'
On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> Sounds like a good reason to shift from using glibc 2.0 to using glibc
> 2.1 or 2.2. I, too, have seen teh MESS that comes from trying to
> compile things for glibc 2.0. In particular, there are several
> applications which don't seem like they'll co
On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> I must say I've been surprised at all the excitement over Linux
> 2.4. I've noticed that all of you kernel wizards are scrambling to
> get Linux 2.4 installed on LRP, while glibc 2.1 gets ignored.
Not entirely. I've got a newlibs.tgz sitting on m
Pim van Riezen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
>
> > I must say I've been surprised at all the excitement over Linux
> > 2.4. I've noticed that all of you kernel wizards are scrambling to
> > get Linux 2.4 installed on LRP, while glibc 2.1 gets ignored.
> For me, it's
On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> I must say I've been surprised at all the excitement over Linux
> 2.4. I've noticed that all of you kernel wizards are scrambling to
> get Linux 2.4 installed on LRP, while glibc 2.1 gets ignored.
>
> To me, Linux 2.4 offers only this:
>
> * State
I must say I've been surprised at all the excitement over Linux
2.4. I've noticed that all of you kernel wizards are scrambling to
get Linux 2.4 installed on LRP, while glibc 2.1 gets ignored.
To me, Linux 2.4 offers only this:
* Stateful firewalling
We don't see question after question on
10 matches
Mail list logo
