<So this is why compiling source on certain distributions fail> was how to add a new glibc symbol ?

[Net Llama!]

On 12/02/03 19:40, Michael Hipp wrote:

> James McDonald wrote:
> 
>  > I wonder, as things progress, will the work arounds provided by binary
> 
>> distributions make it more and more difficult to compile everything from
>> source?
> 
> 
> My experience so far has been exactly the opposite. My previous distros 
> (RH6.1, RH6.2, RH 7.3, COL2.4, COL3.1.1) compiling from source was 
> almost impossible. I'll bet than I couldn't get 1 package out of 20 to 
> compile. It was always "export this, symlink that, get this obscure lib, 
> diddle with config settings, ad naseum" and it still wouldn't work. Now, 
> on RH9, I (very) rarely have problems compiling from source.
> 
> That's why I've finally become enthusiastic about Linux - things 
> actually work.

I've always had mixed luck.  I've built glibc quite a few times over the 
years, and only once was it a complete disaster that rendered the box 
unusable.  This latest incident isn't that bad, if it wasn't for the rpm 
breakage.

I don't suppose anyone knows of any static rpm binaries out there?


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman                       	       netllama at linux-sxs.org
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: 		    http://netllama.ipfox.com

   8:25pm  up 5 days,  4:02,  1 user,  load average: 0.10, 0.10, 0.06