glibc-2.3 is out
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>
> 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
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
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