Re: glibc; introducing slashpackage-foreign

2005-03-10 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
At Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:04:28 +0100, Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are you suggesting something we > > should do, or what is this about? > > It only was a heads-up: I'm doing this and that and it's working for me. > I gave this introduction to show what I (and others) are doing, th

Re: glibc; introducing slashpackage-foreign

2005-03-10 Thread Thomas Schwinge
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:35:29AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > This is all very well, but could you give us some context why you > posted this here in the first place? Alfred wanted to know which flags I used to configure glibc on GNU/Hurd. I told him. He asked why I'd have to use '--prefix=[

Re: glibc; introducing slashpackage-foreign

2005-03-10 Thread Thomas Schwinge
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 01:17:32AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >>I have to use './configure [...] --prefix=[...] >>--with-headers=[...]' because I have every package installed >>into its own hierarchy of >> >> Then your system is broken. > >That's an intere

Re: glibc; introducing slashpackage-foreign (was: GNU Mach panic)

2005-03-09 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
At Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:50:55 +0100, Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [ Cc'ed to the slashpackage-foreign list > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. ] > > [ Replied publically with Alfred's permission. ] This is all very well, but could you give us some context why you posted this here in t

Re: glibc; introducing slashpackage-foreign

2005-03-09 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
Sighs, there is no dead end. This does exactly--from what I can see-- what stowfs/package will do, but in a less flexible, less Hurdish, less GNUish way, and in a less clean way. It is all less. Now, my understanding of this hack can be totally bogus, but in that case correct my understanding in

Re: glibc; introducing slashpackage-foreign

2005-03-09 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
>I have to use './configure [...] --prefix=[...] >--with-headers=[...]' because I have every package installed >into its own hierarchy of > > Then your system is broken. That's an interesting definition of "broken" you're using here. The need for that flag alone ma

Re: glibc; introducing slashpackage-foreign

2005-03-09 Thread Michael Banck
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:48:55AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > I was under the assumption that the Hurd people (I'm aware that only > Alfed replied so far) would be interested in replacing -- well, in some > way -- deadlocked UNIX techniques with superior ones. What you are describing is more

Re: glibc; introducing slashpackage-foreign

2005-03-09 Thread Thomas Schwinge
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:20:40PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >I have to use './configure [...] --prefix=[...] >--with-headers=[...]' because I have every package installed into >its own hierarchy of > > Then your system is broken. That's an interesting definition of "broken" you

Re: glibc; introducing slashpackage-foreign

2005-03-09 Thread Paul Jarc
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have to use './configure [...] --prefix=[...] >--with-headers=[...]' because I have every package installed into >its own hierarchy of > > Then your system is broken. Well, it's different. That doesn't make it broken necessarily. It h

Re: glibc; introducing slashpackage-foreign (was: GNU Mach panic)

2005-03-09 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
the nptl and linuxthreads add-ons should be disabled for GNU/Hurd. They are disabled for the Hurd; don't use --enable-add-ons the way you are using it. I have to use './configure [...] --prefix=[...] --with-headers=[...]' because I have every package installed into its own hierarchy