Re: call for ports to begin using 2.4.0 headers for glibc

2001-01-16 Thread Michael Schmitz
> > arch I build myself). I would like all other archs to follow suit > > (whoever builds glibc for that particular arch), even if it means using > > local 2.4.0 source (and not something in the archive) so long as you > > plan to fill this gap once a 2.4.0/2.4.1 source is available in sid. > Right

Re: call for ports to begin using 2.4.0 headers for glibc

2001-01-16 Thread Ben Collins
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 03:26:03PM +0100, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 11:05:39PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > Well, the big deal is that to enable LFS on glibc, it must be compiled > > against 2.4.0 headers. This does not break when running on 2.2.x > You mean we have to

Re: call for ports to begin using 2.4.0 headers for glibc

2001-01-16 Thread Ben Collins
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 10:50:47AM +0100, Paul Slootman wrote: > On Mon 15 Jan 2001, Ben Collins wrote: > > > Well, the big deal is that to enable LFS on glibc, it must be compiled > > against 2.4.0 headers. This does not break when running on 2.2.x > > AFAIK, if LFS is the only reason for this,

Re: call for ports to begin using 2.4.0 headers for glibc

2001-01-16 Thread Christian T. Steigies
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 03:34:44PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote: > I have a spare A1200 with 68030 processor lying around, it has no harddisk > though. > > Would that count toward donating hardware ? Send it to Ben, if he can keep up with the "speed" of the machine. Christian

Re: call for ports to begin using 2.4.0 headers for glibc

2001-01-16 Thread Sven LUTHER
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 03:26:03PM +0100, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 11:05:39PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > Well, the big deal is that to enable LFS on glibc, it must be compiled > > against 2.4.0 headers. This does not break when running on 2.2.x > You mean we have to

Re: call for ports to begin using 2.4.0 headers for glibc

2001-01-16 Thread Christian T. Steigies
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 11:05:39PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > Well, the big deal is that to enable LFS on glibc, it must be compiled > against 2.4.0 headers. This does not break when running on 2.2.x You mean we have to make binNMUs of glibc? Or will you make a new upload which explicitly requests

Re: call for ports to begin using 2.4.0 headers for glibc

2001-01-16 Thread Paul Slootman
On Mon 15 Jan 2001, Ben Collins wrote: > Well, the big deal is that to enable LFS on glibc, it must be compiled > against 2.4.0 headers. This does not break when running on 2.2.x AFAIK, if LFS is the only reason for this, then the point is pretty much moot on alpha where file offsets have always

call for ports to begin using 2.4.0 headers for glibc

2001-01-15 Thread Ben Collins
Well, the big deal is that to enable LFS on glibc, it must be compiled against 2.4.0 headers. This does not break when running on 2.2.x kernels. However, I have found that on sparc atleast, somethings that were compiled against non-LFS glibc-2.2 do not work with LFS enabled glibc-2.2 until recompil