Glibc 2.3.2 Build Failure

Michael A. Peters mpeters at
Mon Apr 28 02:32:34 PDT 2003

On Sun, 2003-04-27 at 05:13, Richard wrote:

> 	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.

Have you tried with leaving the /bin/pwd binary in place?
I haven't used automojated lfs - but I was able to follow the book using
glibc 2.3.2 no problem if I touched that header it wanted AND I had
/bin/pwd (like is needed for gcc)

> 	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.

I'm running glibc 2.3.2 on an LFS system right now.
Built according to the LFS instructions (with the excepted touch and
/bin/pwd notes)

I did it with the /static method though - not plfs or alfs

>  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. :)
> 	Richard
Michael A. Peters <mpeters at>

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