sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Karsten Behrmann <BearPerson AT gmx.net>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:30:57 +0100
Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us> wrote:
> Quoting Karsten Behrmann <BearPerson AT gmx.net>:
> > MUST? what atomic bomb am I going to trigger when I don't?
> > Unless I am very wrong, my system worked very nicely with the old glibc
> > setup.
> > It might be a little non-standard and/or archaic, but it works.
> > Why merge grimoires to turn a running system into a running (and not too
> > compatible) system?
>
> Did you read the pertinent link posted[0]?
>
> Here's the important line:
> "The fact is, that the header files should match the library you link
> against,
> not the kernel you run on."
Sure. But why change a running system?
For me, having a patched grimoire on the ISO that will break on the next
scribe update is a greater risk than linking against the kernel headers,
whatever that may bring.
IMO (because I haven't seen boxes break yet just because the kernel headers
were used and not the glibc headers) this is not such a severe bug that
it would need being whipped through all grimoires at security-critical-fix
speed. Why not use the same procedure as for any other fix?
(unless that is the 2-week-test phase of course. Then nm me.)
As long as the kernel sources are installed properly (as Arwed pointed out
they have to anyway), everything should work, shouldn't it?
(except then programs using the wrong headers, I know, but I haven't seen
what that breaks yet, as I said.)
So Far,
Karsten
Attachment:
pgpVa4XubCAD8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-
[SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 02/13/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Arwed von Merkatz, 02/13/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 02/13/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Karsten Behrmann, 02/13/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 02/14/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Karsten Behrmann, 02/14/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Eric Sandall, 02/14/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO, Karsten Behrmann, 02/14/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Eric Sandall, 02/14/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO, Arwed von Merkatz, 02/14/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Karsten Behrmann, 02/14/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 02/14/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Arwed von Merkatz, 02/13/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 02/14/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Arwed von Merkatz, 02/14/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 02/14/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO, Arwed von Merkatz, 02/14/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 02/14/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Andrew, 02/14/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO, Eric Sandall, 02/14/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Arwed von Merkatz, 02/14/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 02/14/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO, Eric Sandall, 02/13/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO, Benoit PAPILLAULT, 02/14/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Karsten Behrmann, 02/13/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 02/13/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] glibc spell status and next ISO,
Arwed von Merkatz, 02/13/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.