This is the mail archive of the
glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
[Bug libc/11875] 'make' fails even though 'configure' is OK
- From: "sergstesh at yahoo dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: glibc-bugs at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 5 Aug 2010 18:48:11 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libc/11875] 'make' fails even though 'configure' is OK
- References: <20100804042204.11875.sergstesh@yahoo.com>
- Reply-to: sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org
------- Additional Comments From sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2010-08-05 18:48 -------
(In reply to comment #16)
> Sergei, your tone will not help you in this bugreport. Please calm down before
> commenting again.
>
> Did you read the initial description of bug 333?
>
> Nobody says that there's not a bug - what Roland and Ulrich say is: You're on
> your own and have to investigate it yourself - and that's what you did!
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/resources.html lists the libc-alpha mailing
> list. A friendly email with your findings is more than welcome.
>
> Btw. 2.12.1 was released in July, the tar ball is just newer.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 333 ***
I don't give a damn about bug333.
The officially claimed advantage of _open_ source is that users are saved from
proprietary vendor lock0in because they can always build from source and modify
it if/when necessary.
RedHat with its lieutenant Mr. Ulrich Drepper through bug333 perpetuate _open_
source vendor lock-in. Bugs in build mechanism are not even considered. A simple
phrase: "yes, it's a bug, make sure your 'as' supports 'gnu_indirect_function'
is _not_ said.
And if you do not like my tone - I still remember Mr. Ulrich Drepper saying I
didn't understand what I was doing and that building 'glibc' is not for everyone.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11875
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.