Bug#164768: libc: IPv6 still not correct.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 07:44:40AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:26:31AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> > Is there any compromise we can reach *without* applying hacks that
> > cover up the fact that glibc doesn't cope with the differently-sized
> > kernel structure?
>
> Half tongue-in-cheek, half not: Is 2.2 a supported kernel for the
> sarge release? Since the 2.4 series has stabilized, it might be time
> to put thoughts into just telling people that 2.4 is Good And Right.
For a lot of architectures, 2.4 was _the_ kernel. I know it was that way
for all our new architectures, and atleast sparc64 on the old
architectures.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
Reply to: