On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 09:08:08PM +0000, Richard Adams wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2001, Mike Castle wrote:
> > 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.
The debian box I'm on now is a 2.2.x kernel. It is NOT using a symlink.
> 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.
It has nothing to do with kernels.
It has to do with libc.
If you're using libc6, then there should be no symlink.
> 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,
Because it's broken. That's why. I don't use slackware. You do. You
should point out their mistake.
> 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.
What? Just because it took glibc 3 years to get their documentation
straight (actually I just checked 2.2.3 and it's still wrong), it should
take you another 3 years?
> 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.
The problem is, mis information has already been given to the newbie list.
The *correct* information is:
There should not be any symlinks from /usr/include into the linux source
directory tree.
> 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.....
If any compilation was done on the Mandrake box, I would not be surprised
to see errors pop up.
> 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.
old broken way of symlinks, you mean.
mrc
--
Mike Castle Life is like a clock: You can work constantly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and be right all the time, or not work at all
www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/ and be right at least twice a day. -- mrc
We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen
-
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
