Glibc problems

Ken Moffat ken at
Wed Dec 28 07:22:32 PST 2005

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Ken Moffat wrote:

> OK, tomor^H^H^H^H^Hlater I'll have another go with 20051107 (I overwrote my 
> binutils log when I used 20051024).  A bit odd if it is binutils, I don't 
> immediately see what could make it differ (same script, same packages except 
> glibc, same host).

  Needless to say, the files installed from the sanitised headers and 
binutils, and the logs for binutils, are identical (not surprising, 
nothing has changed).  Diffing glibc between 20051024 and 20051107, 
there are changes for the configure process, so perhaps something is 
broken, or something got missed.

  Plan A: try a newer snapshot, to see if this is fixed on x86.  If it 
is, I'll need to try to isolate what has changed, I really don't want to 
invite everybody to retest all architectures with a later glibc 
snapshot if that can be avoided.

  Plan B: maybe binutils-2.16.1 is now too old for glibc-head, at least 
on x86.

  I'd still appreciate a response to my earlier questions from anybody 
who *has* built cross-lfs for x86 using glibc-20051107.

  das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

More information about the cross-lfs mailing list