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

Grant Leslie grantl at nbnet.nb.ca
Sat Oct 26 19:06:59 PDT 2002


Greg Schafer wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 11:34:30AM +1100, Greg Schafer wrote:
> > More data points:-
> >
> >  - "make check" still passes with the patch applied
> >
> >  - Debian has integrated the (similar) patch:-
>
>
> Yet even more:-
>
> Respected gcc and binutils and Debian developer Daniel Jacobowitz:-
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2002/debian-glibc-200210/msg00093.html
>
> And even Gentoo:-
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?U28B16042
>
>
> C'mon guys! Have I convinced you yet? The patch is obviously the easiest way
> to go! Lets just do it! No hacks, no risk, just normal LFS and no grief!
>

Just my 2 cents ( which since I'm Canadian is probably only worth about a buck
twenty anyway *grin* )?

1) One of the main reasons I want to use LFS, is to do things my own way, the
"correct" way. And ( IMHO ) just because RedHat/Gentoo/Whoever did it one way,
doesn't make it "correct"?

2) "If you want to hack your glibc 2.3 build to work around the problem,
here"!! This is a "hack" too. But, also one that permanently affects your
system. The change has been made to glibc for a reason, and they'll most
likely not be reversing it in 2.3.2 and up, since it is, as they say
"correct". Which leaves LFS in the exact same position the next time glibc
gets upgraded, if the host system is LFS 4.0, or another patched distro, does
it not? Say in LFS 6.0 building on RedHat 7.3, will we still need to patch
glibc-2.4.2 to re-export those same symbols?

-- 
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