Glibc 2.3.1 and Static Bash

Florian FERNANDEZ Florian.Fernandez2 at wanadoo.fr
Tue Oct 15 05:17:43 PDT 2002


<Matthias Benkmann <matthias at winterdrache.de> wrote:

> It's just to know if the "Segmentation Fault" bug of Bash is actually 
> resolved.
>
>This is not a bug. This is an incompatibility. IIRC some functions got
>exported by glibc that never should have been exported. The new glibc
>fixes this problem at the cost of compatibility.
> 
> And what are the bash mainteners are doing for that ?
>
>Nothing. It's a glibc issue. And the glibc maintainers will not "fix"
>this, because they intentionally broke it in the first place.
>There is a patch to restore the old behaviour and I've heard Redhat uses
i>t, but LFS will not use this patch because using clean sources has higher
>priority for LFS than compatibility with binaries.
>
>Several workarounds for the issue have been devised. See the thread
>"glibc-2.3.1".

Ok, sorry for the mistake. But how LFS can do to build a static bash ?

-- 
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