glibc 2.4 is completely unusable for GNU/Hurd at the moment,
Not true. It might be true for Debian GNU/Hurd though.
Also, a GCC 4.1-build glibc doesn't work correctly: it already
fails during the building process, as soon as the newly created
libc.so is being used (might also be
As I said, these patches will become avaiable with time. But as such,
both GCC and GLIBC work fine on GNU; you are of course free to inisist
on otherwise if that makes you happy.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As I said, these patches will become avaiable with time. But as
such, both GCC and GLIBC work fine on GNU; you are of course free
to inisist on otherwise if that makes you happy.
By as such, do you mean upstream glibc 2.4 release and gcc 4.1,
or your patched versions?
That is
glibc hasn't worked out of the box for atleast a year since
malloc/memusage.c uses __thread without #if's.
Ok so glibc 2.4 as such doesn't work (that was the original
question).
glibc since 2.3 hasn't worked out of the box, either CVS or otherwise.
Nor will the malloc/memusage.c
Is select() still broken on hurd ?
Try the quoted program and you will know. And if you do try it, tell
us!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
1) What gets added to the FHS is not a Debian decision,
2) Debian released architectures need to conform to FHS, and
3) Ports still being
objections?
Didn't we come to a conclusion that the addition of /libexec was not
an violation to the FHS? Or at least that the FHS was vague on the
topic of adding new top level directories by distributions.
Cheers,
--
Alfred M. Szmidt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
in relevant
ways before the port is released.
If top-level directories are allowed to be added by the people that
make a distribution then the whole discussion is quite irrelevant.
I will ask about this on the FHS lists..
Cheers,
--
Alfred M. Szmidt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
objections?
Didn't we come to a conclusion that the addition of /libexec was not
an violation to the FHS? Or at least that the FHS was vague on the
topic of adding new top level directories by distributions.
Cheers,
--
Alfred M. Szmidt
9 matches
Mail list logo