On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> 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
I haven't run into any compile troubles so far, specifically brctl works
fine for me.
> 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.
My point was that I have to compile for umpteen versions anyway and
glibc2.0 is smaller. Keep in mind that what I do with cish leads to much
less of a "generic linux platform" where it would make sense to include
arbitrary software packages than most of the LRP projects right now.
Pi
--
Head Development - Vuurwerk Internet (http://www.vuurwerk.nl/)
Brainbench MVP Unix Programming, twisted artist and Free Software idiot.
I need a mental stoma.
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
