Ewald Wasscher wrote:
>
> David Douthitt wrote:
>
> >Pim van Riezen wrote:
> >>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
> Is anyone still using this?
Just today someone on the busybox list said that there was a problem
compiling busybox from CVS with libc5. Some people do seem to be
still using it.
> I may be wrong, but I think that anything using ipv6 won't compile with
> glibc 2.0.
Sounds about right, but I don't know for sure either.
> I'd vote for 2.2. It may be bigger, but 2.1 will be unmaintained rather
> soon I'm afraid. So when we choose for glibc 2.1 we might end up with
> the same mess as we have for glibc 2.0 now in a year or so. Unless one
> of us is capable of backporting security fixes 2.2 is the way to go I
> think.
I tend to agree, though I've already got 2.1.3 going. Upgrading
libraries is a hassle - biggest of which is compiling the libraries
from scratch - but I imagine I'll be doing it soon enough.
> That makes me wonder if anyone has seriously considered uClibc. It
> probably has some limitations. One is of course that binaries compiled
> with glibc won't run on a uClibc system.
That's one of the main reasons I went to glibc 2.1.3. No need to have
to scrounge for old binaries; just load a current (now semi-current)
distribution and use that.
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
