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

Matthias Benkmann matthias at
Sun Oct 27 06:35:49 PST 2002

On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 19:51:29 -0700 Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee
<highos at> wrote:

> If anything we are at a disadvantage in this regard.  Both Redhat and
> Debian have developers that work on the GNU projects, by far much more
> knowledgeable about theses pieces of software then any of us here.

And STILL these same people who are working for major distributers have
decided to NOT put this patch into the official glibc distribution. They
could have decided to officially keep these symbols exported, allowing
their employers to ship unpatched libraries, saving themselves and others
a lot of "bug" reports. But they did not. It seems to be important to them
to get rid of these symbols and they're probably unhappy that they have to
keep these symbols in the libraries shipped with distros for
LFS on the other hand could do this the "right way" (meaning "as the
developers intended it"), for every LFS user, even those who don't want to
build glibc twice in chapter 6.


Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have.

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