On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 10:36:00PM +0100, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > One never needed suse's or redhat's glibc to run binaries created on their
> > platforms. Likewise one never needed their libstdc++ or their toolchain,
>
> You regularly did. Even with libc5 there were two semi incompatible sets
> of X libraries (with/without pthreads) and some other problems. Thats why we
> need the LSB work
You *keep* ignoring the point. Please, Alan, the point is that all these
libraries were not forked redhat-only versions. You keep citing irrelevant
facts about library incompatibilities, but the fact is that all these
came from the official sources and were compatible to the official
versions. Even egcs made a large effort to become gcc compatible.
Why do you keep ignoring this point?
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@opengroup.org |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 07 2000 - 21:00:08 EST