glibc-2.2.5 patch for sparc

Seth W. Klein sk at
Thu Oct 3 16:29:52 PDT 2002

Matthias Benkmann <matthias at> wrote:
> On 03 Oct 2002 20:18:47 +1200 Zach Bagnall <yem at> wrote:
> > 
> > If the change does not effect other architectures, I suggest it be added
> > into the book 
> That means more patch-reading for non-SPARC users (who are the majority).
> Not everyone applies patches blindly. And if we start incorporating SPARC
> patches, we'll have to add PPC,... too and in the end we'll have tons of
> patches that the majority doesn't need to read. Patches are a last resort.
> There should be as few as possible in the book. I really think that this
> should better be in a SPARC hint. Note that there is no minimum size for
> hints. A hint that just contains "Apply this patch to glibc and everything
> else will work by the book: <patch>" is fine.

One of the advantages to open (free) source in general and building
from scratch particular is that it is not tied to an architecture.
This is useful because there are various reasons to use architectures
besides x86. Battery life on PPC notebooks is one i know.

Truely supporting other architectures in the book requires little.
For PPC, i know of need for a bootloader page and one compile option
which is already in the book. Power management daemons and such are
likely BLFS material.

If you (Matthias) object to lengthening a generic patch, the patch
(which is trivial, IIRC) could probably be separate and marked for
SPARC only just as there have been separate instructions for some
AMD machines.

Seth W. Klein
sk at                   
Maintainer, LFS FAQ       
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list