> pardon me, but is 2.1 released at all ?
Yes.
> suggesting commercial/serious developers to use the
> latest/greated/internally-released/work-in-progress/for-
> -your-eyes-only/to-be-updated-tomorrow version of glibc isn't what
> I'd think is the best for the image of Linux as stable, rock solid
> and upward-compatible system.
glibc 2.0 was (according to the web page I read yesterday) supposed to be
a developers release only. glibc 2.1 is/was intended to be the stable
release.
> I'm really disapointed to see "get the every single latest flee from the bazar"
> way of thinking -- it's not fun at all if you're trying to get real work done
> with Linux.
So use vi and *roff :)
> some netscape 4.0x and 4.5 versions for glibc 2.0.x with more
> recent glibc versions (don't remember exact version), and
> all tested combinations chocked horribly, so I just stepped back
> from pre-2.1 at that time. haven't tried again since then though...
Developers releases won't necessarily be backwardly / binary compatible.
Stable releases are / should be.
-- There was a young man of St. John's / Who wanted to bugger the swans. / But the loyal hall porter / Said, "Pray take my daughter! / Those birds are reserved for the dons."- 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/