SOT: linux kernel-2.4.2 and glibc

2001-04-06 Thread Harri Haataja 

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Gerhard den Hollander wrote:
 * John Palkovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 12:08:23PM -0500)

  I recently compiled a 2.4.2 kernel for the backup server. If I boot
...

 Hmm,
 This 2.4 kernel, does this also imply glibc2.2 ?

I have seen a few claims lately that 2.4 requires glibc2.2.
Maybe I've misunderstood every post, but I don't see why a kernel would
require anything specific to be running on top of it. New libc makes sense
and compiled in a certain way, can be matched to 2.4 breaking 2.2
compatibility, but no the other way around.

I have 2.4.1 running on glibc 2.1.3, 2.2 and 2.0.7 alike. Haven't tried
libc5 nor diet libc =)
No problems anywhere as far as I can tell.

But the talks get me worried. Are there any pointers?

-- 
Funk, Funking n.
   A shrinking back through fear. Colloq. ``The horrid panic,
   or funk (as the men of Eton call it).'' --De Quincey.

Re: SOT: linux kernel-2.4.2 and glibc

2001-04-06 Thread Dan Wilder 

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 10:53:50AM +0200, Gerhard den Hollander wrote:
 * Harri Haataja [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 09:57:05AM +0300)
 
  I recently compiled a 2.4.2 kernel for the backup server. If I boot
  
 
  Hmm,
  This 2.4 kernel, does this also imply glibc2.2 ?
 
  I have seen a few claims lately that 2.4 requires glibc2.2.
 
 no,
 I didn't say ``rquire'' I said ``imply''
 All the distros that are shipping a 2.4 kernel are also shipping glibc2.2.

In fact kernel 2.4 does not require glibc2.2.  I've had 2.4 running happily
since its pre-release days, on a glibc2.1 machine.

-- 
-
 Dan Wilder [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Technical Manager  Editor
 SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549   Phone:  206-782-8808
 Seattle, WA  98155-0549URL http://embedded.linuxjournal.com/
-