Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:
> I expect that library versions and compiler versions should matter to
> compiling programs. But I do _not_ want kernel versions to do that. It's
> already painful for people that you have to have the right library
> version. I'd _hate_ to see source code that says "requires kernel 2.3.99
> or higher sources in /usr/src/linux" in addition to saying "needs
> glibc-2.1.2 or newer for threading reasons".
I cannot except any of your accusations. Your style of development
these sudden, unplanned changes is what makes it necessary to not add
all the content to the libc headers. In addition, and I repeat this
probably for the thousands time, where the f*ck is the sysconf()
functions which is so very much needed?
Until you provide solutions for this you cannot expect others to do
more work. I would have to release a new glibc version every week
since something changed and somebody will run into the problems. And
no, your argument that the people who are doing such low-level work
should know what to do doesn't cut. Those people might know, but what
they produce and ideally distribute in source form has to be compiled
by the clueless. They don't know how to change their system (if they
even have the permission) and hardcoding new values is also out of
question.
Maybe you should spent some time thinking how *you* can improve the
process of using more recent kernels before complaining about others.
The first and obvious thing is to implement __sys_sysconf (maybe do it
on top of sysctl, I don't care).
-- ---------------. ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `------------------------- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 21:00:26 EST