On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 11:25:28AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 05:52:42PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote: > > i386-pc-linux-gnu-gnulibc2.1 : for libc2.1 > > i386-pc-linux-gnulibc1 : for libc2.0 > > i386-pc-linux-gnulibc1-static : static 2.0 > > i686-pc-linux-gnu-gnulibc2.1 : 686-optimized for 2.1 > > i686-pc-linux-gnulibc1-static : 686-optimized static for 2.0 > > > > Now, I did make an install package that would install the binaries > > from the tarball that is put either in /tmp or $TMPDIR. My question is > > - should I actually make 5 separate packages with different > > dependencies or make one package with instructions to download the > > correct tarball for their system. With the latter option, obviously if > > someone with a slink system were to download the gnulibc2.1 version, > > the program won't run. Based on this, it seems to me that I should > > make 5 separate wrapper packages, and force dependencies > > accordingly. Am I right? > > Well, potato is GLIBC 2.1. You don't really need to support anything else, > so only two packages (686-optimised and non-optimised). > > Note that the gnulibc1 is NOT for libc2.0 as you have above -- it is > for libc5. I think they should provide a glibc 2.0 (libc6.0) binary > as well, but they don't. My slink system is running the libc5 binary > because I don't want to upgrade to potato yet. > > > Hamish
Hamish, I just checked my binary. You are right. It's been compiled with libc5. I'll ask the SETI folks to provide a glibc 2.0 binary. Thanks! I haven't upgraded to potato either. Is there a machine that is running potato that developers could use to test glibc 2.1 related packages? Gopal -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gopal Narayanan Ph #: (413) 545 0925 Five College Radio Astronomy Observatory Fax#: (413) 545 4223 University of Massachusetts e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Amherst MA 01003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
