Adam It wouldn't hurt but I don't think it's necessary. glibc2.1 can
Adam drop-in replace 2.0 (unless you have a program that depends on
Adam certain internal stuff which it shouldn't be using anyway).
Octave doesn't depend on internal stuff, but still fails when a glibc2.0
compiled
Adam Di Carlo wrote:
Oscar Levi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been distracted by revenue production for a couple of months.
Are we expected to upload our packages rebuilt for glibc2.1?
It wouldn't hurt but I don't think it's necessary. glibc2.1 can
drop-in replace 2.0 (unless you
I've been distracted by revenue production for a couple of months.
Are we expected to upload our packages rebuilt for glibc2.1?
Oscar Levi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been distracted by revenue production for a couple of months.
Are we expected to upload our packages rebuilt for glibc2.1?
It wouldn't hurt but I don't think it's necessary. glibc2.1 can
drop-in replace 2.0 (unless you have a program that depends on
On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 02:11:42AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
I've been distracted by revenue production for a couple of months.
Are we expected to upload our packages rebuilt for glibc2.1?
It wouldn't hurt but I don't think it's necessary. glibc2.1 can
drop-in replace 2.0 (unless you
5 matches
Mail list logo