From glibc-2.2.x to glibc-2.3.x
gschafer at zip.com.au
Sat Oct 26 19:21:44 PDT 2002
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 11:06:59PM -0300, Grant Leslie wrote:
> 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"?
Point taken. But we are trying to solve a problem here. I'm using the fact
that the big boys are using the patch as ammunition to support my proposal.
LFS gives you the power to do it "your way" and I encourage you keep on
doing it. But we need a smooth way to build the next gen LFS. That is why
I'm harping on about it.
> 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
As has already been pointed out, rebuilding a non-patched glibc again in Ch 6
will achieve a pristine glibc-2.3.1, if anyone is that worried about it..
> 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?
Quite possibly. But when the host distro is based on glibc2.3 or above then
there is no need for the patch.
There are already a stack of outdated distros that are unsuitable for even
building LFS 4.0. So when we go to build LFS 6.0, RedHat 7.3 will prolly
fall into that category. But Redhat 8.0 will work.
ps - did your hack work?
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