Re: more questions about LFS
Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 02:48:52PM +0100, Emil Pedersen wrote:
> > I'm still some things that confuses me when putting lsf support on a
> > potato system. A accept that you have to (re)compile your program
> > against the new libc in order to use files larger than 2GB. But..
> Trying to add lfs to potato isn't a real good approach. It's going to be
> a lot easier to just move to woody if that's something you need.
Running "apt-get dist-upgrade"? Would that realy change/benefit much if
there's only one application (the database engine) that needs lsf
support? Since it's a server that preferably should be up 24/7 I want
to stick to the most stable solution possible.
> Mike Stone
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com