Subject: Re: We have a problem...need some help on this one...
From: Christopher C. Chimelis (chris@debian.org)
Date: Mon Apr 17 2000 - 13:18:56 PDT
On 17 Apr 2000, David Huggins-Daines wrote:
> So, really, this is the only thing that needs to be fixed? There is
> also the management of /etc/ld.so.cache, which I presume would be
> working fine otherwise.
I believe it does ok with that, but I haven't even delved into that
segment yet. It may not, considering it can't even parse the BFD
structure, from what I can tell....
> Speaking of which, has anyone talked to them about the binary
> incompatibility problems (RH's glibc not providing
> __register_frame_info and friends) we're facing? It's really up to
> them to fix it, but I haven't looked at RH6.2 yet so I don't know if
> they really did or not...
>From what I can tell, they haven't made an effort yet. Then again, I
believe we're ahead of them in glibc revisions. Also, the only reason
that we have the symbol and they don't is because they're still using
egcs. Doubt this will change any time soon. I've actually talked about
this on the axp-list, but I think RH doesn't bother reading it anymore.
> Particularly since TurboLinux and Mandrake are releasing Alpha
> distributions and they will probably just be using exactly the same
> stuff as Red Hat :P
Maybe not. They seem to like to stay more on the "bleeding edge" than RH
does...so they may use the complex patch to make gcc compile glibc (like
we do).
I'm very happy that we're really using gcc. I never liked egcs much
except for the fact that it actually worked on Alpha...
C
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a22 : Mon May 01 2000 - 18:42:05 PDT