Re: Upgrading AS, libc5 okay?

David Mihm (
Thu, 29 Oct 1998 18:27:27 -0600 (CST)

On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Ethan wrote:

! On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, David LaMothe wrote:
! > First, thanks for all the replies; I think the fog is clearing. I suppose the
! > crux of my question revolved more around the libc vs glibc matter. It's my
! > understanding that this is not a RedHat or RPM issue, but that the whole
! > GNU/Linux world has just about moved to glibc. This is the reason for my
! > question and doubts about compiling the AS source, and whether or not it is 
! > intended for a glibc system, given that I have libc. I've read the whole FAQ
! > and changes file and found nothing. Sorry if I'm pressing the point, but I'll
! > first have to remove the AS RPM (I think) and that's a bit scarry. If I've
! > missed something or am totally out to lunch, please let me know.
! While it is true that many people in the Linux world have switched to 
! glibc, not everyone has.  For instance: I have, but David Mihm (one of 
! the people who tests devel versions of AS) has not.  It's a pretty safe 
! bet that AS will compile and run fine on a libc5 machine.  Go for it - 
! I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with the ease of installation.

	glibc2 is evil, just like gtk 1.1.x :)  It's a sad day in the
Linux community when applications require alpha/beta or extremely new
libraries or toolkits (like those above).  Making applications only work
when compiled with things like egcs or pgcc is also just as evil. It's a
sad, sad day. :(
	Thankfully Afterstep does not require any of these ridiculus hoops
for you to jump through.
	We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.   
d a v i d  @  m i h m                          reality.sys corrupt!
davemann-at-ionet-dot-net                     reboot universe(y,n)?
(www||ftp)                           ICQ:906859
Key fingerprint =  E4 90 15 ED E5 9F 18 8A  B0 CC FF 68 61 36 4A 6F