glibc-2.3 is out

Matthias Benkmann matthias at winterdrache.de
Sat Oct 5 03:52:07 PDT 2002


On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 14:49:22 +1000 Greg Schafer <gschafer at zip.com.au>
wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:34:10PM +0200, Matthias Benkmann wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Oct 2002 15:26:00 +1000 Greg Schafer <gschafer at zip.com.au>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > This is a really huge pain for LFS. Now we are going to have to jump
> > > thru' hoops just to run a static bash shell (linked on a glibc-2.2.5
> > > or earlier based system). Unless someone figures out a painless way
> > > to make it work..
> > 
> > Well, you didn't answer my last message in the "Re: Fun with
> > glibc-2.3" thread. What if you copy all libraries listed in the trace
> > (including libc!) until the trace shows no more accesses to libraries
> > outside/static/compat. This has to work.
> 
> Oops, sorry. I didn't answer coz, like you, I was certain it would work,
> and it does. But it's not an optimal solution IMHO.
> 
> Consider the current ordering of packages in Ch 6. If we use the
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH /static/compat thingo, then all packages up to bash will
> run inside the chroot against the old libc.

Who said anything about exporting LD_LIBRARY_PATH to all packages?

oldbash> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/static/compat exec bash
newbash> unset LD_LIBRARY_PATH

MSB

-- 
Where...the ENIAC is equipped with 18000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons,
computers in the future may have 1000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh just
1-1/2 tons.

Popular Mechanics, March 1949, p.258

-- 
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 mailing list