Drool... WAS --> Re: Autoconf Version 2.14.1

Gerard Beekmans gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Jan 5 15:19:07 PST 2001


> I think one thing that people miss is that the reason that we were all
> having trouble compile LFS on glibc-2.1.9x and 2.2 systems was because
> many of the packages haven't been rebuilt with it's little gotcha's in
> mind... Most of these packages had programs that weren't built with the
> strictest standardization in mind... Those are the problems I've read
> about in the glibc-2.2 ... In other words, it is my feeling that we
> should at least wait for some of those packages to be updated...if that
> means we wait for gcc-2.95.3 ..then, so be it...it shouldn't be that
> long... they've released a test version already... Then again, I said
> the same thing when linux-2.4.0-test1 came out :)


 
> (btw, I have tried building LFS from an RH7.0 box with updated glibc-2.2
> rpm's... I found that the same problems exist there.  If anyone else has
> had different experiences, I'm all ears...there could be problems with
> rh's implimentation of 2.2 ... Red Hat make a mistake??? No - Never!!
> ...hehe)

The problems compiling stuff on RedHat7 was due to the compiler used,
not the 2.2 glibc they had (well at the time glibc-2.2 wasn't stable
yet, but that has chagned in the mean time).
 
> Has anyone had success building a clean gcc-2.95.2 source tree without
> patching it?
> How about Fileutils?

GCC 2.95.2 needs a small patch that changes a struct somewhere. That
patch will make gcc compile against glibc-2.2 just fine.
The fileutils patch is a minor one. All it does is remove line 40 from
dircolors.c (char *strndup();)
This is just a change in the C Library standard, that was already
implemented in 2.1.3. gcc-2.95.2 doesn't seem to catch this under
glibc-2.1.3, but gcc-2.7.2.3 does catch it under glibc-2.1.3 (and
gcc-2.95.2 does catch it under glibc-2.2 again).

 
> I mean, the fileutils problem was fairly major...on my system, ls didn't
> print to standard output... Now, perhaps that was the only problem and

It wasn't the patch that fixed it (not the one-liner patch I have here).
No idea what that was all about.

> I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't mind patching and fixing things at
> all, but these base level programs are a little bit too important to
> have obscure gotcha's hanging around in....

Like previously said, the problem wiht fileutils was already present,
just the compiler didn't tell us about it with glibc-2.1.3 as it should
have (gcc bug perhaps).
 
> Perhaps the answer is to give an option for installing glibc-2.2 in the
> book... Perhaps that's a horrible idea from a support standpoint... but
> maybe it's the only way to please everyone...

Like I said in my other email I will wait with official book updates. If
you want to go glibc-2.2 with gcc-2.95.2 you can get the book from CVS
as soon as I have put it in there.


-- 
Gerard Beekmans
www.linuxfromscratch.org

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list