Pim van Riezen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
>
> > I must say.... I've been surprised at all the excitement over Linux
> > 2.4. I've noticed that all of you kernel wizards are scrambling to
> > get Linux 2.4 installed on LRP, while glibc 2.1 gets ignored.
> For me, it's basically the fact that I'm silently still pissed off with
> the mess I, as a developer, get when dealing with different glibc
> versions. No matter what glibc I use on my development system, at the end
> if I want to produce binaries I'll have to use three different
> environments if I want to cater for all glibc variations. Now that
> RH7/glibc2.2 is gaining acceptance that'll be four:
>
> libc5
> glibc2.0
> glibc2.1
> glibc2.2
Sounds like a good reason to shift from using glibc 2.0 to using glibc
2.1 or 2.2. I, too, have seen teh MESS that comes from trying to
compile things for glibc 2.0. In particular, there are several
applications which don't seem like they'll compile under glibc 2.0:
* ax25-tools
* zebra
* brctl
Of course, they all compile WITHOUT ERRORS OR WARNINGS under glibc
2.1.
> If you add to that the fact that a typical embedded application shouldn't
> be using much more than the stdio, string and socket functions and you see
> that I'm reluctant to change over to a newer glibc, which will probably
> take more space without offering much in exchange.
How about not having to compile for the old glibc versions? Sounds
like a good reason to me. You gave lots of good reasons for why LRP
(and variants) should move to glibc 2.1 or 2.2, instead of arguing
against it.
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
