Re: X server status
At 02:34 -0700 1998-06-13, Michael Shuey wrote:
> In libc6-dev, version 2.0.93-980414-1 (from a mirror of Incoming),
><sys/socket.h> includes <bits/sockunion.h>. sockunion.h defines this massive
>union of all possible sockaddr structs for some reason (used for IPv6?).
>This union includes sockaddr structs for rose (<netrose/rose.h>, which in turn
>includes <linux/rose.h>, only found in the unstable kernels) and for
>AppleTalk (normally found in the libatalk-dev package, <netatalk/at.h>).
>Getting rose.h is easy, just download the unstable kernels. Getting netatalk
>is a bit trickier, since netatalk won't compile (it needs a working
><sys/socket.h> to build).
> I finally have time to work around this (possibly by downgrading
>libc6-dev) and I hope to have something compiling soon. But is this really
>the way libc6-dev should be? Should it use headers in development kernels
>and other packages like this?
Note that glibc 2.0.9x is itself a development version (of glibc 2.1) too.
It shouldn't be asking for a 2.1.x kernel header unless it was built with
2.1.x headers, the configure script only forces 2.0.10 or higher, so the
upstream maintainers need to be contacted about this.
glibc 2.1 is supposed to provide its own /usr/include/netatalk/at.h and
from my work on powerpc, I see that it does.
If the libc6-dev from glibc-pre2.1_2.0.93-980414-1 doesn't provide
/usr/include/netatalk/at.h then it's a bug.
I will investigate how well netatalk and glibc 2.1 get along, as soon as I
get a functioning glibc on powerpc.
--
Joel "Espy" Klecker
Debian GNU/Linux Developer
<mailto:jk@espy.org>
<http://web.espy.org/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: