[roland at redhat.com: Re: More info on static binary/libnss* mystery]
zigman at gmx.net
Mon Oct 7 08:08:56 PDT 2002
here is what i'm going to do
build ch5 as usual
build lfs with glibc-2.3patched
buidl everything from within the new lfs without the patch
lets see what happens ;)
couldn't we build glibc-2.3 than build chapter 5 linked to that glibc ? then chroot into it and build ch6 as usual ?
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 07.10.2002 at 10:30 Adam Trilling wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Greg Schafer wrote:
>> Future LFS could say something like:-
>> "if your host distro has glibc-2.2.5 or older then you will need to
>> apply this patch to glibc-2.3"
>> We do stuff like that already for other packages so..
>If the glibc people recommend against it though, we should make our final
>LFS be sans-patch. We're trying to be the best we can be, rather than as
>good as redhat :)
>If I understand things correctly, the problem occurs after you build glibc
>without the patch inside chroot. So here's what I propose:
>1) build ch 5 normally
>2) build glibc with patch
>3) rebuild those parts of ch 5 which break in glibc 2.3, linking aginst
>the patched glibc 2.3
>4) rebuild glibc without the patch
>5) continue as normal
>If we do step 3 dynamically, will things we build work both with and
>without the patch? If so, maybe we could reorder ch 6 so that you don't
>have to do any dynamic builds twice (except for glibc).
>I might be able to do a test build of this tonight, so someone let me know
>if I'm completely off-base before then.
>agt10 at columbia.edu
>Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
>and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
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