Glibc 2.3.2 Build Failure
Michael A. Peters
mpeters at mac.com
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
I'm running glibc 2.3.2 on an LFS system right now.
Built according to the LFS instructions (with the excepted touch and
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. :)
Michael A. Peters <mpeters at mac.com>
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