> On 12 Mar 1999, david parsons wrote:
>
> > That's not a SO problem. That's a glibc problem.
>
> No it's not. It's a SO problem. It relies on features in glibc-2.0.7 which
> are not present in glibc-2.1. The glibc boys ('n gals) assures me that if
> they did not do that, *and* did it right, there would not have been any
> problems installing SO on a glibc-2.1 system. And as such, SO developers
> _are_ a bunch of lamers. The majority of glibc binaries don't have such
> problems because they don't go right into the glibc internals.
any facts and details ? just a "it's not our fault" is not much evidence (on any side).
please keep in mind when SO 5.0 was released! at least at that time
glibc 2.0 and pre-2.1 have been so full of compatibility problems
that I believe the SO (Netscape, Applix, Orcale, ...) boys
that there was no chance not using glibc 2.0.7.
anyway, what has to be taken care of to use glibc 2.0 to build 2.1-proof
applications ? are there any docs, FAQs, hints, ... ?
Harald
--
All SCSI disks will from now on ___ _____
be required to send an email notice 0--,| /OOOOOOO\
24 hours prior to complete hardware failure! <_/ / /OOOOOOOOOOO\
\ \/OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\
\ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|//
Harald Koenig, \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Inst.f.Theoret.Astrophysik // / \\ \
koenig@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de ^^^^^ ^^^^^
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/