>> > Does kernel 2.4.x compile and run well for all of our supported archs?
>>
>> AFAIK yes. At least on all Debian archs.
BC> So, sparc, ultrasparc, i386 (with pcmcia support), alpha, arm, m68k,
BC> powerpc? I know that mips, s390 and hppa almost require a 2.4.0 kernel,
m68k is not ready
Does kernel 2.4.x compile and run well for all of our supported archs?
AFAIK yes. At least on all Debian archs.
BC So, sparc, ultrasparc, i386 (with pcmcia support), alpha, arm, m68k,
BC powerpc? I know that mips, s390 and hppa almost require a 2.4.0 kernel,
m68k is not ready AFAIK. There
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>work in our transition mechanisms. IOW, we don't have to just worry about
>1 architecture and 1 distribution, we have to make sure upgrades work,
>make sure things don't break, and ensure backward compatibility is retained
>
> Just for comparison, RedHat delivers glibc compiled with
> 2.3.nn/2.4.0 headers -> newer interfaces are supported.
>
Let's not even get started on what RH did or did not do. If everyone did
what RH did, then everyone else can just roll over and die, since there
will be no
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 02:16:41PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > Do programs compiled against a glibc with LFS (2.4.x kernel) support, and
> > > using that LFS support, work on kernel 2.2.x machines?
> >
> > Yes. Even glibc (2.2) compiled against kernel without LFS support has LFS
> >
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 07:32:39PM +, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> On 20 Nov 00 at 13:19, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > Does kernel 2.4.x compile and run well for all of our supported archs?
>
> AFAIK yes. At least on all Debian archs.
So, sparc, ultrasparc, i386 (with pcmcia support), alpha, arm,
On 20 Nov 00 at 13:19, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> Does kernel 2.4.x compile and run well for all of our supported archs?
AFAIK yes. At least on all Debian archs.
> Do programs compiled against a glibc with LFS (2.4.x kernel) support, and
> using that LFS support, work on kernel 2.2.x machines?
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 07:06:07PM +, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> On 20 Nov 00 at 17:56, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> > I just noticed this problem -
> > I'm missing some large files created in the filesystem.
> >
> > This is 'ls' output from 2.4.0-test11/test10
> > total 33
> > drwxr-xr-x6 root
On 20 Nov 00 at 17:56, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> I just noticed this problem -
> I'm missing some large files created in the filesystem.
>
> This is 'ls' output from 2.4.0-test11/test10
> total 33
> drwxr-xr-x6 root root 4096 Nov 20 18:06 .
> drwxr-xr-x 42 root root
Hi
I just noticed this problem -
I'm missing some large files created in the filesystem.
This is 'ls' output from 2.4.0-test11/test10
total 33
drwxr-xr-x6 root root 4096 Nov 20 18:06 .
drwxr-xr-x 42 root root 1024 Nov 20 14:02 ..
drwxr-xr-x2 root root
On 20 Nov 00 at 17:56, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
I just noticed this problem -
I'm missing some large files created in the filesystem.
This is 'ls' output from 2.4.0-test11/test10
total 33
drwxr-xr-x6 root root 4096 Nov 20 18:06 .
drwxr-xr-x 42 root root 1024
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 07:06:07PM +, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
On 20 Nov 00 at 17:56, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
I just noticed this problem -
I'm missing some large files created in the filesystem.
This is 'ls' output from 2.4.0-test11/test10
total 33
drwxr-xr-x6 root root
On 20 Nov 00 at 13:19, Ben Collins wrote:
Does kernel 2.4.x compile and run well for all of our supported archs?
AFAIK yes. At least on all Debian archs.
Do programs compiled against a glibc with LFS (2.4.x kernel) support, and
using that LFS support, work on kernel 2.2.x machines?
Yes.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 07:32:39PM +, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
On 20 Nov 00 at 13:19, Ben Collins wrote:
Does kernel 2.4.x compile and run well for all of our supported archs?
AFAIK yes. At least on all Debian archs.
So, sparc, ultrasparc, i386 (with pcmcia support), alpha, arm, m68k,
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 02:16:41PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
Do programs compiled against a glibc with LFS (2.4.x kernel) support, and
using that LFS support, work on kernel 2.2.x machines?
Yes. Even glibc (2.2) compiled against kernel without LFS support has LFS
interface. Of course
Just for comparison, RedHat delivers glibc compiled with
2.3.nn/2.4.0 headers - newer interfaces are supported.
Let's not even get started on what RH did or did not do. If everyone did
what RH did, then everyone else can just roll over and die, since there
will be no difference
Hi
I just noticed this problem -
I'm missing some large files created in the filesystem.
This is 'ls' output from 2.4.0-test11/test10
total 33
drwxr-xr-x6 root root 4096 Nov 20 18:06 .
drwxr-xr-x 42 root root 1024 Nov 20 14:02 ..
drwxr-xr-x2 root root
17 matches
Mail list logo
