Putting Glibc in Chapter 6

Eric B ewbish at theriver.com
Mon Jan 15 17:53:40 PST 2001

On Monday 15 January 2001 18:33, you wrote:
) ;o)
> 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 starting distribution that tend to get outdated at times which may or may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,
Eric Bueschel

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 mailing list