Re: compiling problems

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:41:50AM -0600, Richard Troth wrote:
> Kay said:
> >> Hmm, I think we should not support that officially by ifdefs
> >> and version magic. The needed bits are added to glibc 2.1.9*
> >> in the year 2000.
> >>
> >> Or where do you think, we should we draw the line?
> 
> Then Miles wrote:
> > glic 2.1.3 is still used a bit by memory conservatve releases
> > as 2.2 or 2.3 is quite a bit bigger.  gcc 2.95.3 is the only gcc
> > which I've found seems to work properly with glibc 2.1.3.
> 
> I affirm Miles' comments.
> Some "tight" systems are stuck here.
> On such systems,  we can build newer releases of many things,
> but upgrading GLIBC and GCC just won't work.   (Not today,  anyway.)
> I have such machines doing production work.   (Granted,  not widely.)

Why not just use the version of klibc to build udev against in these
situations?  It's easy:
	make USE_KLIBC=true

That's what I have done on my one old box that still has an old version
of glibc.

I don't think we should be adding work arounds for this kind of stuff,
due to this built-in solution.  Unless that doesn't work for anyone
else?

thanks,

greg k-h


-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list  http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel