From glibc-2.2.x to glibc-2.3.x

Chris Lingard chris at
Sat Oct 26 04:40:10 PDT 2002

Matthias Benkmann wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 16:58:21 +0100 Chris Lingard <chris at>
> wrote:
>> Original idea by Alfred Zastrow
> [snip massive changes, lots of work]

Thats not work, thats fun.

> I have a bad feeling about this.
I feel the same way about LD_LIBERRY_PATH

>> The the build sequence has been modified;
> Have you checked for hardcoded paths? Since the /static separation was
> introduced, the build order is *very* fragile.

Yes I have run it, and checked it.
> Why do you prefer this to the LD_LIBERRY_PATH hack? It's much more work
> and much more likely to break things because unlike the LD_LIBERRY_PATH
> hack it not only affects the /static binaries but also the chapter 6
> binaries, and unlike the LD_LIBERRY_PATH hack which only affects bash, tar
> and ls, the nsswitch affects *all* binaries.

I do not like the LD_LIBRERRY_PATH hack because it copies binaries into
the LFS environment, and it edits binaries.

> Do you see any benefits of the nsswitch hack that would make it preferable
> for the LFS book?

I one I liked best was my post-{tar fileutils ncurses bash} scripts.
This only added four small compilations to the book; to cross compile
these packages against the new library.  This system was built using
that method.  I would prefer that in the book.

It makes no difference to me, my new systems can replicate; I
shall probably be overwriting my last glibc-2.2 system shortly.


Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list