On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Gerhard den Hollander wrote:
> * John Palkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 12:08:23PM -0500)
> > I recently compiled a 2.4.2 kernel for the backup server. If I boot
...
> Hmm,
> This 2.4 kernel, does this also imply glibc2.2 ?
I have seen a few claims lately that 2.4 requires glibc2.2.
Maybe I've misunderstood every post, but I don't see why a kernel would
require anything specific to be running on top of it. New libc makes sense
and compiled in a certain way, can be matched to 2.4 breaking 2.2
compatibility, but no the other way around.
I have 2.4.1 running on glibc 2.1.3, 2.2 and 2.0.7 alike. Haven't tried
libc5 nor diet libc =)
No problems anywhere as far as I can tell.
But the talks get me worried. Are there any pointers?
--
Funk, Funking n.
A shrinking back through fear. Colloq. ``The horrid panic,
or funk (as the men of Eton call it).'' --De Quincey.
