Glibc 2.3.2 Build Failure

Richard rgollub at
Sun Apr 27 05:13:11 PDT 2003

Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Ah, so that has been reported to work. I believe I read that after touching
> that file a build error happened later on. Maybe it was an isolated incident,
> or whatever.

	This remains outstanding as far as I am concerned. I did report the
original failure, but did not have any time to devote to this issue.
Also, by that time, the pure lfs movement was already traveling at high
speed, and contributed to remove any incentive of looking further into
the problem.

	I use an automated LFS build system, and whilst it produces an
absolutely sound system throughout with 2.3.1, it craps out when running
with just changing the glibc to 2.3.2 plus the touch bit to overcome a
glitch in this glibc's configuration. Thus, technically, in the EXACTLY
the same building environment 2.3.2 does not compile by the old LFS way.
That's a definite conclusion.

	Although my report stands isolated and I never saw any other
info/feedback regarding this issue, I do really wonder if 2.3.2 can be
successfully compiled by anybody the LFS way, under the same environment
conditions. Sorry, but my testing environment is scientifically
irreproachable and backs me up on this one. Obvioulsy I'd be very happy
to hear from success stories and the correction(s) applied: I'd be more
than happy to check and confirm it(them) using my building system. :)

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