Re: 'Installation' file and compilers..
|--==> "VK" == Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu> writes:
VK> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:32:00 +1000, Steve Youngs <youngs(a)xemacs.org>
said:
>Excellent! But why make the distinction of Linux distribution?
I
>don't know of any distro that doesn't use GNU libc. So surely if you
>can get the libc version in RedCrap/Mandunny, you can get it for any
>distro, no?
VK> Well.. for RedHat/Mandrake, I just cheat and do 'rpm -q glibc' to get
VK> something a *bit* more specific than 'libc.so.6' (for starters, it's
still
VK> called libc.so.6 even under glibc 2.3.2 which has all the TLS stuff).
VK> A co-worker is going to feed me the Debian and Suse checks, and if it's
VK> none of those, I'll probably resort to 'ldd /bin/ls | grep' of some
sort.
What's wrong with 'libc.so.6 | head -1'? I don't know about other C
libs, but GNU libc spits out version info if you run it as a program.
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 10D5C9C5>---|
| XEmacs - The only _______ you'll ever need. |
| Fill in the blank, yes, it's THAT good! |
|------------------------------------<youngs(a)xemacs.org>---|