I am well aware that almost all distributions use glibc (and have for
quite some time) and did not intend to "make a fool of myself" as you say.
If I said a lie, point out where is the lie, but if I told the truth
(perhaps selectively, as usual, for my convenience (as, yes, I am a happy
customer of Red Hat and delight in their brave decision to switch to
glibc ages ago)), wherefore you called me a fool?
Regards,
Tigran
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
>
> > You said:
> >
> > > As far as I can decipher from the error message linux/un.h was included
> > > in sys/un.h I have no idea why.
> > Maybe because you are using old unsupported /usr/include headers which
> > came with old unsupported version of libc?
> >
> > The industry leader (i.e. Red Hat) use new glibc which has correct
> > headers. My personal advice -- either use Red Hat or do everything
> > manually properly, starting from the bootsector and ending with
> > applications.
>
> Please, stop spreading hogwash - there are options beyond those
> two. FYI: RH is not the only distribution using glibc. Debian also uses
> it, for one. Moreover, "everything from bootsector" bit is pure BS -
> installing glibc is not a rocket science. BTW, WTF does "industry leader"
> mean?
>
> Sheesh... It's really getting to nerves. I have nothing against Red Hat,
> but some of their, erm, happy customers...
>
> I'll abstain from giving personal advice regarding what to do with your
> one. Please, get a clue - it may help you to avoid making a fool of
> yourself.
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/