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

Gerard Beekmans gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Oct 30 08:53:35 PST 2002


<snip everything>

I'm finding myself in between a rock and a very hard place. The "export them 
symbols" patch is the easiest and cleanest solution. I agree with that camp. 
But, not having a pristine Glibc isn't a great thing either and I would like 
to avoid that. It doesn't matter much to me wether or not other distributions 
use that patch. I know the reasons they use it and I can appreciate it. But I 
also try to aim at having a system using packages as the developers intended 
it. So I agree with the "LD_LIBRARY_PATH hack" camp too.

But I don't particularly like the idea of having to do chapter 6 (partially) 
twice. Even if you don't remove the glibc-* directories after building it, 
simply reverse the patch (patch -R) and re-issue 'make && make install' it 
shouldn't take all that long (well that's the theory. It doens't always work 
that way) but after reversing the patch we'd have a number of static programs 
installed already. Would they still work or would we need to reinstall those 
packages too.

If we're lucky and all the static programs installed in chapter 6 will still 
work after we reinstall Glibc without the patch, we might have a viable 
solution that would make both camps happy: 1) easiest installation 2) 
unpatched Glibc (eventually)



-- 
Gerard Beekmans
www.linuxfromscratch.org

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
-- 
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