On Mon, Apr 13, 1998 at 04:48:46PM +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 1998 at 03:46:48PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > > Granted, OSS/Linux is an example of how NOT to write a driver for Linux,
> > > and OSS/Free is worse, but.
> >
> > Some day in the future, the ALSA (Alte
On Mon, Apr 13, 1998 at 03:46:48PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Granted, OSS/Linux is an example of how NOT to write a driver for Linux,
> > and OSS/Free is worse, but.
>
> Some day in the future, the ALSA (Alternative Linux Sound Architecture) may
> take over. It is (L)GPL'ed software. Hel
> That is precisely correct. libc6-dev depends on one exact set
> of headers from an exact kernel version. This is documented. The
> dependencies are correct.
>
> manoj
Thanks, that's what I wanted to know.
jabberwock
###By lack of understanding they remained sane. (George Orw
On Mon, Apr 13, 1998 at 04:15:21AM +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> Granted, OSS/Linux is an example of how NOT to write a driver for Linux,
> and OSS/Free is worse, but.
Some day in the future, the ALSA (Alternative Linux Sound Architecture) may
take over. It is (L)GPL'ed software. Help is app
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> Ok fine, so what do I do to get a system done correctly
George> running 2.1.X?
George> It looks like I, at first, point the symlinks to the kernel
George> source provided headers. Compile glibc. Create a
George> kernel_headers pa
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> On 12 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Nothing but libc6-dev is supposed to set symlinks in /usr/include;
>> certainly the kernel packages should not.
>>
George> YES they SHOULD! If the /usr/include symlinks are
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> I just keep /usr/src/linux symlinked to the current source
George> directory. Example: on slowpoke /usr/src/linux is a symlink to
George> /usr/src/linux-2.1.95. In this way, patches that try to patch
George> against both /usr/src/
Hi,
Congratulations! You have just introduced a subtle bug on your
system. It may work, and possibly never cause a problem, but
there is a bomb ticking away, waiting to explode ;-)
There is a reason there is a versioned dependency for
libc6-dev. The reasons are explained in a l
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> Oh, well then just --force depends!
Use force anything and you are on your own. Using the wrong
set of headers (which is what you shall be doing if you use force)
has been known to hose compilation.
Please do
Hi,
>>"Tamas" == Tamas Papp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tamas> My problem was that I couldn't not substitute
Tamas> kernel-headers-2.0.32 with kernel-headers-2.0.33 in the sense
Tamas> that libc6-dev depends on the former but it doesn't accept the
Tamas> latter instead, so my problem was a depende
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> On 12 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
kernel-source-> version> may not supply the same headers as
kernel-headers-> version>, especially on non intel hardware. There
>> fore the dependency in libc6-dev is correct.
>>
> > Nothing but libc6-dev is supposed to set symlinks in
> > /usr/include; certainly the kernel packages should not.
> >
>
> YES they SHOULD! If the /usr/include symlinks are pointed to
> /usr/src/kernel-headers-2.0.29 and you install kernel-source-2.0.32 you
> MUST change those symlink
On Sun, Apr 12, 1998 at 04:20:00PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
> > kernel-source- may not supply the same headers as
> > kernel-headers-, especially on non intel hardware. There
> > fore the dependency in libc6-dev is correct.
> >
> > manoj
>
> The problems I saw were in installing a k
On Sun, Apr 12, 1998 at 03:42:12PM -0600, Tamas Papp wrote:
> My problem was that I couldn't not substitute kernel-headers-2.0.32 with
> kernel-headers-2.0.33 in the sense that libc6-dev depends on the former
> but it doesn't accept the latter instead, so my problem was a dependency
> problem.
I
Hi,
Nothing but libc6-dev is supposed to set symlinks in
/usr/include; certainly the kernel packages should not.
manoj
--
Abandoning violence to all living creatures moving or still, he who
neither kills or causes killing - that is what I call a brahmin. 405
Manoj Srivastava
Hi,
kernel-source- may not supply the same headers as
kernel-headers-, especially on non intel hardware. There
fore the dependency in libc6-dev is correct.
manoj
--
It is either through the influence of narcotic potions, of which all
primitive peoples and races speak in hymns
> Oh, well then just --force depends!
It's NOT the solution, just a treatment of the sympthom. I'm asking
whether there is a real reason or is it a mistake.
> But you are better off staying well clear of 2.0.33 unless there is some
> hardware support there that you absolutely HAVE to have. 2.0.33
> I have noticed some problems with some of the kernel packages not setting
> the symlinks properly in /usr/include/linux, /usr/include/asm and
> /usr/include/scsi. I have not reported it because I have not been exactly
On my system, asm and linux are perfect and scsi is not a symlink.
> > Does an
Does anyone know why libc6-dev doesn't accept kernel-headers-2.0.33? It
depends on kernel-headers, but it only works with the 2.0.32 one.
jabberwock
###By lack of understanding they remained sane. (George Orwell)###
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
19 matches
Mail list logo
