Putting Glibc in Chapter 6
ewbish at theriver.com
Mon Jan 15 17:53:40 PST 2001
On Monday 15 January 2001 18:33, you wrote:
> One could come up with several reasons for wanting to compile Glibc in
> chapter 6. One of those reasons being that you run less risc of ending up
> with a bad glibc installation because the distribution's compiler didn't
> compile glibc properly. You can install gcc-2.95.2 on the starting
> distribution and use it, but you still rely on the other software from your
> starting distribution that tend to get outdated at times which may or may
> not cause (minor) problems.
My name is Eric, I've been lurking here for a while, mostly getting my
questions answered without asking them;) I'm about 70% of the way through my
first LFS install (great job all, not a single error or problem so far!).
I'm jumping in here as I was just wondering about installing GLIBC in chapter
6 myself. So far just about every package on the system is being recompiled
in Ch. 6 in order to dynamically link it, compiler optimizations, etc. I
notice that GLIBC is not recompiled in Ch. 6. I know this may be a dead
horse issue with regards to LFS 3.0, but as far as 2.4 goes, would there be
any performance gain achieved by recompiling/reinstalling it again in Ch. 6?
Would this break anything? The base distro I'm using is Slack 7.0 (of
course), using egcs 2.91. I have been debating a recompile of GLIBC in the
LFS environment just so I could use gcc 2.95.2 and make sure I am getting a
good clean build of Glibc, is there any reason to do/not do this? If I do
it, are there any "got yas" to look out for? Thanks,
Q: Is Linux only good because it is free?
A: No, but Windows would still suck if it was.
The side of the box said "Requires Windows 95 or better". I figured
this means it must run in Linux.
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