Re: LSB1.1: /proc/cpuinfo
>From email@example.com Fri Jan 4 01:59:30 2002
>> The reason was that "cdrecord dev=xxx ..." won't work because the bit mask
>> definitions in ctype.h did change and for this reason, cdrecold by using
>> getallargs would assume that dev= is not an option but a file type argument.
>SuSE and Red Hat managed to get different glibc 2.0 ones. Thats a somewhat
>seperate issue, and thats the kind of thing the LSB is precisely there
>to ensure doesn't happen again.
>Thats not a compatibility argument so much as a clear explanation of why
>the LSB matters
I am happy to see LSB as it makes Linux go towards a system that may be used
by combining binary compilations of programs on many systems if it is done
Right now, when I am forced to make binary only versions of programs like
e.g. the the Plextor firmware upgrade program, I can only do it for libc.so.5
and for glibc-2.2. Anything in between gives problems.
EMail:firstname.lastname@example.org (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
email@example.com (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
firstname.lastname@example.org (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix