Fix for GLIBC's /etc/libc.so ?

[Jason]

Lucas Vogel wrote:
> 
> If you've found the fix (or A fix, for that matter), remember to
> double-check it and send it to the package maintainers, so that they know
> and can disseminiate that accordingly to the next guy that tries to do
> whatever it is you're doing...

I think the primary thing I discovered was the need for libc_p.a
instead of libc.a to be included. The rest of the differences dont
seem to be what solves the problem. This got me back quite a few
things, including compiler functionality, but I am still giving
serious thought to moving the whole thing into a subdirectory and
installing something fresh.

If for no other reason than as much as I like fvwm, I'd like to at
least try out some of the other wm's. Curiosity is killing me. Might
be nice to have a box that at least somewhat resembles what everyone
else is using as well, more and more stuff comes inside a .rpm instead
of a tarball these days, oddly enough, ive even seen people distribute
source in rpms, though I am not quite sure what the point of that
is...

-- 
jkenner @ mindspring . com__
I Support Linux:           _> _  _ |_  _  _     _|
Working Together To       <__(_||_)| )| `(_|(_)(_|
To Build A Better Future.       |                   <s>