| gabriel rosenkoetter on 14 Feb 2004 20:36:02 -0000 |
|
On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 03:16:09PM -0500, Mike Chirico wrote: > True, I should have said Linux specific. But uname -a is incomplete. It > doesn't give the user the version of gcc used. This is important because > sometimes the version of gcc and the version of the kernel have to be taken > into account. Could you name some cases? (I've never encountered any, but I also don't use Linux in a context where I'm building my own kernels. I use NetBSD or FreeBSD in those contexts, and those operating systems define a specific compiler version as "standard". That standard changes periodically--NetBSD recently switched to gcc 3 for -current--but it doesn't change without a whole lot of hoopla, and it's never necessary to use a separate compiler for the kernel and userland.) I think the version of [g]libc matters a lot. I don't think the compiler and linker version matters much. But maybe Linux is sillier than I'm giving it credit for? > But, problems could occur if you're putting hard links into run levels vs > symbolic links. If they use emacs, to edit /etc/init.d/samba these changes > will not show up under rc5.d While that's a valid point, it's pretty deep into minutiae, and it really impacts understanding of SysV rc systems, not so much understanding of file systems. (Note that what you say here is totally irrelevant to BSD rc systems.) That is, if this is the salient point you're after, I think you should be asking questions about system boot procedures. Also note that this is one of the reasons that you probably shouldn't use Emacs for systems administration, though it's great for software development. -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net Attachment:
pgpslP2fCYS7a.pgp
|
|