On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 02:42:22AM -0400, Paul Jarc wrote: > Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't even think this qualifies as a bug. It's basically an > > enhancement request, to have a clean way of supporting glibc in > > an unusual place. > > It works in previous versions going back to 2.95.3, so I'd think it > would be a bug, and a regression. But since this is such a rare > circumstance, I wouldn't expect it to be a release-blocker. I brought > it up only in the hope that it might be transparent to someone and > fixed before the release, but I certainly understand if it isn't.
I disagree; you had a procedure to hand-edit the Makefile, and something changed so your procedure no longer works. But this was never a documented, supported way of doing things; nothing that involves hand-editing could be. Maybe there could be something like --with-libc=/some/path that would automatically generate the correct Makefiles; that would be an enhancement.
