From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lars Marowsky-Bree Subject: Re: multipathd.init Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:22:56 +0200 Message-ID: <20050410192256.GN12752@marowsky-bree.de> References: <20050401204048.GI14307@agk.surrey.redhat.com> <1112389744.8118.26.camel@zezette> <20050401211902.GL14307@agk.surrey.redhat.com> <1112390705.8118.34.camel@zezette> <1112521418.8118.49.camel@zezette> <20050404211520.GB14307@agk.surrey.redhat.com> Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050404211520.GB14307@agk.surrey.redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: device-mapper development List-Id: dm-devel.ids On 2005-04-04T22:15:20, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > For Red Hat distributions, I intend to use glibc static builds for=20 > the multipath-tools, same as for lvm2 & dmsetup. >=20 > I don't want the worry of having to support more than one libc. > (All tests have to be done twice then, for starters, and you lose > use of glibc features the other libraries don't support.) >=20 > So much is getting pushed into the initrd these days, that there's=20 > even the prospect of shared object support being added one day. Again, same here. Though I'm not even sure our initrd doesn't have the glibc.so already ;-) Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Br=E9e --=20 High Availability & Clustering SUSE Labs, Research and Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business