--- Borsenkow Andrej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> you should not compile glibc against kernel sources.
So I found the thread in the archives. I already knew
that the version of the kernel-headers doesn't
neccesarily match the version of the kernel. glibc is
supposed to be compiled against a kn
> It's in their glibc SRPM. If you rebuild it, it
> compiles against Mandrake's kernel-headers package,
> rather than what is in /usr/include (which could be
> Mandrake's kernel-headers package, and should be on
> Mandrake's build machine). For the sysadmin this is
> an annoyance because it does
It's in their glibc SRPM. If you rebuild it, it
compiles against Mandrake's kernel-headers package,
rather than what is in /usr/include (which could be
Mandrake's kernel-headers package, and should be on
Mandrake's build machine). For the sysadmin this is
an annoyance because it doesn't let your
> According to the documentation that comes with the
> kernel sources, the kernel sources installed in
> /usr/include (or symlinked there) should be the ones
> your glibc was compiled against. Having the glibc
> SRPM compile against Mandrake's kernel-headers package
> forces us to waste disk spa
According to the documentation that comes with the
kernel sources, the kernel sources installed in
/usr/include (or symlinked there) should be the ones
your glibc was compiled against. Having the glibc
SRPM compile against Mandrake's kernel-headers package
forces us to waste disk space installing
>
> Did it pick up kernel-headers being in glibc? Now you
> people have to waste your time repackaging glibc every
> time you change the kernel.
Do you really know what you are talking about? Please, check archives
where it was explained (multiple times). Kernel-headers has noting to do
with k
--- tester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ummm, and economics rears its ugly head
>
> You see, if you do a --whatprovides query, you
> should get a unique
> answer in mdk. Otherwise it is a nightmare when a
> tarball changes--have
> to repackage all of them that provide it, and the
> distro
--- tester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Skwar wrote:
>
> > So sprach »Pixel« am 2002-01-30 um 10:56:20 +0100
> :
> >
> >>remove package "basesystem" and this limitation
> will go away...
> >>
> >
> > Is lilo needed at all if I use grub? If not, then
> both grub and lilo
> > should p
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> So sprach »Pixel« am 2002-01-30 um 10:56:20 +0100 :
> > remove package "basesystem" and this limitation will go away...
>
> Is lilo needed at all if I use grub? If not, then both grub and lilo
> should provide "bootloader" and basesystem should requi
Alexander Skwar wrote:
> So sprach »Pixel« am 2002-01-30 um 10:56:20 +0100 :
>
>>remove package "basesystem" and this limitation will go away...
>>
>
> Is lilo needed at all if I use grub? If not, then both grub and lilo
> should provide "bootloader" and basesystem should require bootloader an
So sprach »Pixel« am 2002-01-30 um 10:56:20 +0100 :
> remove package "basesystem" and this limitation will go away...
Is lilo needed at all if I use grub? If not, then both grub and lilo
should provide "bootloader" and basesystem should require bootloader and
not lilo and/or grub.
Alexander Skw
Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Another example of "bloat": I use grub as my bootloader. This means I
> don't use lilo. But when I try to rpm -e lilo, I get an error message
> saying that lilo is required by basesystem. IIRC, there's some stuff in
> the lilo package which is als
So sprach »Yura Gusev« am 2002-01-29 um 21:24:31 -0500 :
> No i dont see any logic in this statement.
>
> What I'm meaning to say: There might be some uses of any software, but
> I'd say for the majority of the target audience (home users), any software
> is not needed. So it should be removed.
On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 12:45, Reinhard Katzmann wrote:
>
> I guess you guys mixed up xfs (x file system) and xfs (X font server) ;-)
i hate when people do this. ...eh.
>
> > It's not really the same thing, having ide and ext2 stuff compiled into the
> > kernel doesn't really hurt you, it's j
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Peter Ruskin wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 16:41, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > So sprach »Stefan Siegel« am 2002-01-29 um 11:33:17 +0100 :
> > > Linux XFS Font server. So it is needet! Maybe not for for everyone
> > > out there, but there are still lots of users ...
> >
> > R
On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 16:41, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> So sprach »Stefan Siegel« am 2002-01-29 um 11:33:17 +0100 :
> > Linux XFS Font server. So it is needet! Maybe not for for everyone
> > out there, but there are still lots of users ...
>
> Really "lots" of users? Well, you may need it, but for
On Tuesday 29 January 2002 18.45, Reinhard Katzmann wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 06:00:44PM +0100, Michael wrote:
> > On Tuesday 29 January 2002 17.41, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > > Really "lots" of users? Well, you may need it, but for instance I
> > > don't have any ext2 filesystems,
Hi!
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 06:00:44PM +0100, Michael wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 January 2002 17.41, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > Really "lots" of users? Well, you may need it, but for instance I don't
> > have any ext2 filesystems, and also no ide stuff. But still these
> > "drivers" are compiled i
On Tuesday 29 January 2002 17.41, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> So sprach »Stefan Siegel« am 2002-01-29 um 11:33:17 +0100 :
> > Linux XFS Font server. So it is needet! Maybe not for for everyone out
> > there, but there are still lots of users ...
>
> Really "lots" of users? Well, you may need it, but
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> So sprach »Stefan Siegel« am 2002-01-29 um 11:33:17 +0100 :
> > Linux XFS Font server. So it is needet! Maybe not for for everyone out
> > there, but there are still lots of users ...
>
> for the majority of the target audience (home users), XFS is n
So sprach »Stefan Siegel« am 2002-01-29 um 11:33:17 +0100 :
> Linux XFS Font server. So it is needet! Maybe not for for everyone out
> there, but there are still lots of users ...
Really "lots" of users? Well, you may need it, but for instance I don't
have any ext2 filesystems, and also no ide s
>
> Ok, then make it optional at least (and don't use it any longer with
the
> default installation).
It is easier for packages to modify just one file when adding font
paths. If you remove xfs support every package with own fonts has to be
modified. And you still have to modify xfs configurati
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 11:33:17AM +0100, Stefan Siegel wrote:
> Hello Reinhard
>
> Es schrieb Reinhard Katzmann:
> > AFAIK xfs in meanwhile no longer needed with XFree 4.2, so why not
> > simply remove it ?
>
> We had this discussion some time ago, but OK once again: We are running
> several X
23 matches
Mail list logo