RFE: dietlibc review

[Enrico Scholz]

notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) writes:

>> >> ip-sentinel, dhcp-forwarder, util-vserver
>> >
>> > Odd, nothing about these requires dietlibc, AFAICT.
> ...
> Wasn't looking at the specs, actually; just the source; it certainly
> doesn't require dietlibc in that sense.

As said, rpm does not know something like 'recommends'. For ip-sentinel
and dhcp-forwarder it should not make much difference (except different
resource usage at runtime) whether they are compiled/linked against
dietlibc or glibc. But dietlibc is recommended for them.

But for util-vserver, I hope that I made the warnings big and fat enough
when the tools will be built against glibc. ;)




Enrico
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 480 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20050519/3a2e798f/attachment.sig>