Re: OFFTOPIC: e2fsprogs and +2Gb partitions
Andreas Haumer (andreas@xss.co.at)
Sun, 14 Jun 1998 14:56:12 +0200
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.980613224355.1314A-100000@chaos.analogic.com>,
> Richard B. Johnson <root@chaos.analogic.com> wrote:
> >I can shut up no longer. I __HAD__ all the sources for all the programs
> >I installed glibc and now I have nothing. No sources except the kernel
> >will compile.
>
> Nothing a good edit sessions can't cure. I ported Debian 1.1 to glibc 0.90
> for the Alpha (also 32/64 bit issues to solve) in a week or so. And that
> was 1 or 2 years ago.
>
> All of the stuff I maintain for Debian compiles out of the box
> with glibc.
>
> >I obtained a 'standard' distribution from a CDROM and installed it on
> >another system. Sources provided on that CDROM will not compile with the
> >tools provided with that distribution. This is because that distribution
> >had glibc.
>
> Well that's strange. It doens't happen to be Slackware right ..
>
> >It will probably be years before there are any Linux distributions that
> >will compile the sources for the binaries provided by these distributions.
>
> Debian can compile itself. I'm sure about this because almost all packages
> that get submitted for i386 in the tree get autocompiled by bots for the
> other architectures. The sources are not only glibc clean but also
> multi-architecture clean.
>
> I cannot imagine that RedHat can't compile it's own sources.
>
I had a discussion about that topic with some people at the
Linux-Kongress
in Cologne a few days ago: I talked about the situation that I have to
manually patch even general packages like GNU tar, sh-utils,
file-utils,
text-utils and so on in order to get them compiled with glibc-2.0.6 on
my
Linux system. And packages like amd are even worse...
The answers I got sounded very much like Miquels "approach": "Nothing
a
good edit session can't cure" and "you can use distribution xyz"...
This is very discouraging: standard packages should be standard
source. I
don't want to have lots of different sources and patches floating
around!
Now every distribution seems to have its own "patch-set". Do they
report
their patches back to the maintainers of the standard packages? Are
these
packages still maintained?
There are people out there who don't use one of the major
distributions!
We should not let these people alone... (I'm one of them :-)
I understand that creating a new standard library is a _lot_ of work,
and adapting all the different packages to the new library is a lot of
work, too.
But the current situation looks like things are going a little bit
un-coordinated, and we still have a long way to go...
(No offense, I'm the last one who doesn't recognize the good work
that's in the library and all those userland packages!)
- andreas
PS: That's becoming _way_ off-topic now. Shouldn't we better discuss
this on the glibc-linux@ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu mailing list?
--
Andreas Haumer | email: andreas@xss.co.at | PGP key available
*x Software + Systeme | phone: +43.1.6001508 | on request.
Buchengasse 67/8 | +43.664.3004449 |
A-1100 Vienna, Austria | fax: +43.1.6001507 |
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu