On Tue, 29 May 2001, Mike Castle wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 07:51:04PM +0000, Richard Adams wrote:
> > Anyway i cant see a (g)libc problem in the kernel souce from the
> > discussion on this thread. Only if the libs are so outdated not to be
> > compatable with the souce of today, however that is all explained in the
> > Changes file, but what the heck, who reads the dam doco's anyway..
>
> To quote one Linus Torvalds (perhaps you've heard of him):
No who is he.?
To cut thew crap,. when this thing started it seemed to be about 2.2.x kernels
which is why i cut in, now considering that fact my contribution is valid, all
comments included in previous mails. Now i dont want to flog a dead horse and
confuse more folks than this is worth however here goes.
>
> I've asked glibc maintainers to stop the symlink insanity for the last
> few years now, but it doesn't seem to happen.
>
> Basically, that symlink should not be a symlink. It's a symlink for
> historical reasons, none of them very good any more (and haven't been
> for a long time), and it's a disaster unless you want to be a C
> library
> developer. Which not very many people want to be.
Histrorical reasons, of which he himself layed down years ago.
snip.
> > > There should be NO symlinks from /usr/include to
> > > /usr/src/linux/include/(whatever).
> >
> > Ok, write to linux-kernel and tell then to alter all previous kernel versions
> > before 2.4, Remember this, i have said it time and time again, differnt distro's
>
> Well, Linus has been saying for _years_ that there should be no symlink from
> /usr/include into the /usr/src/linux/include stuff. And since I don't
> think 2.4 has been out for years, then I do believe that most kernels prior
> to 2.4 have followed this strategy. Is it NOT anything new.
Tell that to the slackware folks then not me.
Remember slackware still uses 2.2.xx kernels.
> So, the new Linux tradition is, when you build a new libc, you copy the
> contents from <linux>/include/asm into /usr/include/asm and
> <linux>/include/linux into /usr/include/linux. Where <linux> is wherever
> your linux kernel may lie. (In my case, for instance, it is
> /usr/src/linux/linux-2.4.5.)
Looks like it then but we must make the differance between kernel versions
2.2.xx and 2.4.xx as i see it as thats the way it is in what could then be
called older distro's i am sure you must agree there.
>
> > So saying there should be NO symlinks in the linux directory is simply not
> > true, there are and as i see it will be for a while to come, possably not in your
>
> Yes it is.
I think it should be said, once again if a distro like slackware still insist on
using that system with older kernels then why should it be considered tabooe,
looking at the points you have made, yes they certainly would need to alter
things, one thing which could not be done the old way was compile a kernel
source in your (user) home directory, i find that in itself a gigantic step
forward.
Another thing is, if it takes even Linus Torvalds 3 years to convince glibc
maintainers to change thier habbits then i think i have made my point.
Another thing is this disscusstion is getting way above the level of this
list, if you wish to disscuss this further, please write to me personally, i get
the impresstion we are only confusing the newbie list more than we are helping,
of course if there are others who wish to get copys of the mails then i have no
objection to that, other than, dont blame me if i forget to CC to a certain
person who wants a copy.
>
> > Redhat distro, but thats your thing, i presume you have Redhat considering your
> > views.
>
> Personally I don't use any distributions if I can help it. At work I use
> debian and mandrake. Debian gets it right (no symlink), mandrake gets it
> wrong. At least for the versions that I'm using. And I believe the debian
> one is fairly old. They've been doing it right for a long time.
But i bet they both do the job right.? Otherwise your boss would say dont use
them, it costs "me" time and time is money.....
>
> > No point, my points have been made, all i have done is show that many distro's
> > still do it the linux traditional way.
>
> If distributions would still using onlyt the "traditional" libc5 or libc4
> libraries, would you be as tolerant of them? If they broke from those
> traditions, they should break from the symlink tradition as well.
Yes as a matter of fact i would, in a certain sence, i like many other Radio
Hams have been left with libx problems since glibc was introduced.
Ie, programs which were written to comply with libc5 and have been left out of
the new Radio Ham utils for linux because noone wants to convert or maintain
them to libc6. One program which is really unmissable was PMS, a program which
was written by another name i know you will recognise, Alan Cox, who is BTW, a
Radio Ham like i.
However on the otherhand there are many more programs now for us than there
ever was under libc5, thats life i suppose.
I do agree on the fact that things need a change every now and again,
however this disscussion is only going to confuse users of 2.2.xx kernels who
still use the old faithfull way of symlinks.
I suppose i should have took more note of the "Subject" of the origanal
message, afterall i was thinking 2.2.xx kernels to begin with, but there again
i bet i was not the only one who did that in the first place.
Have a nice linux day.
>
> mrc
--
Regards Richard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://people.zeelandnet.nl/pa3gcu/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
