On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Stephen Carpenter wrote:
>
> > By the way, the most recent OSS should take care of all of this stuff
> > automatically, I believe. I install OSS without having to touch any of
> > the links (which point to 2.0.32 headers). I am using kernel 2.0.33 and
> > OSS for 2.0.33 without any modifications or problems.
>
> It might...but it claims on the web page that it doesn't
> I got the 2.0.xx version and plan to upgrade to 2.0.33...
> I just upgraded to hamm 2 days ago but I still use 2.0.29 so
> I can hear sounds
> I am contemplating a jump to 2.1.84 ...OSS/Linux has a version fo rit...
> and I am running hamm "unstable" anyway....
> Thanx fo rthe info....I never would have thought that the libc FAQ would
> talk be where to find out about linux kernel headers strangeness
I believe that the OSS web page refers to bo, which had the headers in
libc5-dev, rather than symlinks to kernel headers. This changed with hamm
and libc6. You might be pretty safe with 2.0.29, but if there are
problems compiling, you'll at least know where to look.
Bob
---
Bob Nielsen Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen/
--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
