Error in Ryan's glibc on x86
Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational
bill at nospam.dot
Thu Feb 12 18:30:55 PST 2004
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au wrote:
> > version GLIBC_2.3.4 not defined for libc
> Cool, looks like I missed one... will go on the hunt ;-)
> Question to the dev list, is this hackery better moved to -hackers?
> Not too sure if you guys will want to see the upcoming noise too
> much ;-)
For me personally, no diff because I monitor both anyway. But basd on
glibc being discussed apparently being tied to gcc 3.4, effort for ppc
and alpha, patching the glibc cvs, it sure sounds like good lfs-hackers
I make the assumption that all this is still "horizon" activity that
will not approach being in even CVS for a couple more months yet? And
the glibc aspect will certainly be handled different from previous glibc
(except for the most recent).
If so, I would guess lfs-hackers is the place. I don't think any
lfs-dev'ers should object to subscibing there if they want to follow it.
OTOH, if *most* of the work is very close to affecting cvs content (and
release a short while later) then it certainly should stay on dev I
think, for the convenience of those who need to get the final results
into the book.
Use fixed above line to mail me direct
More information about the lfs-dev