* Harri Haataja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 09:57:05AM +0300)
>>> 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.
no,
I didn't say ``rquire'' I said ``imply''
All the distros that are shipping a 2.4 kernel are also shipping glibc2.2.
Im not sure, but I think you need both to handle files > 2G
> 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.
It doesn't.
I also have glibc2.2 if I boot back to a 2.2.X kernel.
> 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.
All I said was that I have seen the same problem when I moved from
2.2X/glibc2.1 to 2.4/2.2.
I upgraded my distro,. and got both (2.4 and glibc2.2).
That's all.
> But the talks get me worried.
Don't be ;)
>
> --
> Funk, Funking n.
> A shrinking back through fear. Colloq. ``The horrid panic,
> or funk (as the men of Eton call it).'' --De Quincey.
>
Currently listening to: the hum of my computer
Gerhard, <@jasongeo.com> == The Acoustic Motorbiker ==
--
__O And she let me up, down, with secrets I cannot keep
=`\<, Close your eyes and sleep, don't wait up for me
(=)/(=) Hush now don't you speak, to me.
