On Fri, 24 May 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Michael Meskes writes:
>
> > Or does the -34 mean more than just the RedHat version number? The
> > Debian version is correctly named 2.2.5-6 where the -6 means that this
> > is the 6th release of glibc 2.2.5 for Debian,
>
> Just for general amusement: I run SuSE's glibc 2.2.5-38 which contains
> neither the questionable code in the original sources nor is there any
> reference to it in the patch set. Go figure.
You've got to remember that you're talking about systems where, a long time ago
now, certain groups felt it necessary to supply nonstandard versions of the
core component (the kernel). Sure they helped development of the kernel but
only through bastardisation of version numbers where 2.0.1 didn't really mean
a Linux 2.0.1 kernel. Is it really surprising the system support stuff has been
mangled beyond sense?
Anyway, I've composed several and aborted all but this message on this subject
and I'm not going to persue it. I have my own views on the right and wrongs off
the change in glibc but they wouldn't have advanced anything so I'm keeping
quiet on it, still. It seems there is a solution forming. Plus, I'd hate to
side with the baddies from the first paragraph :)
--
Nigel J. Andrews
Director
---
Logictree Systems Limited
Computer Consultants
