glibc-2.3 is out
gschafer at zip.com.au
Fri Oct 4 22:55:50 PDT 2002
On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 12:34:15AM -0500, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> Would the following work?
Dunno. Try it out and let us all know :)
> * Modify the paths so that binaries in $LFS/static/bin & libraries
> in $LFS/static/lib are picked up first.
> * Compile static version of binutils-2.13 with --prefix=$LFS/static.
> * Compile static version of gcc-3.2 with --prefix=$LFS/static.
> * Compile static version of glibc-2.3 with --prefix=$LFS/static.
> * Compile the rest of the required packages. There would be the
> added advantage that we would be using binutils-2.13, gcc-3.2 and
> glibc-2.3 to compile rest of the packages.
I think it makes no sense to compile a "static" glibc. But like you say, a
Ch 5 compile of glibc may be necessary. But it would suck to have to
compile it again in Ch 6. I'm pretty sure older LFS's used to compile glibc
in Ch 5 and install it into the chroot prefix for use in Ch 6. But that is
not very "clean" at all.
But we really want to avoid compiling glibc twice if at all possible (even
though I have advocated that very thing in the past).
> Another option, if installing a static version of glibc-2.3 is not
> viable, is to use the version of gcc we install in $LFS/static to
> compile dynamic glibc-2.3 in ~lfs on the host and link the rest of the
> packages against it.
Yes, agreed. After I posted I realised my mistake and just knew someone would
pick me up on that :)
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev