On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 11:19:04PM +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > I saw three separate reports of successful builds on Linux 2.4.2 on x86
> > (including mine), but it isn't listed here.
>
> It is listed in the comments in the real docs. At least one report was
> for an extensively patched 2.4.2, and I'm not sure of the true lineage
> of the others.
You could ask. Just to ignore reports that you have asked for is not
polite. My report was based on a virgin, unpatched 2.4.2 kernel, and
(as noted) the Debian-packaged glibc-2.2.2.
If you are trying to trim your list, would be reasonable to drop
Linux-2.0.x, because that version is not being maintained any more.
> I *could* remove the version info from the x86 listing, and mention both
> 2.2.x and 2.4.x in the comments.
Linux-2.2 and Linux-2.4 are different codebases. It is worth noting,
besides, the glibc-version tested along with each Linux kernel version.
Nathan Myers
ncm@zembu.com