Glibc-2.3.3 tarball

Bruce Dubbs bdubbs at
Sat Jan 10 14:26:00 PST 2004

Greg Schafer wrote:

>Of course, there is a catch to all of this and that is -- by using the new
>Glibc we are bringing on the pain of the Coreutils POSIX compliance madness.
  I have not been keeping up with this.  Can you give a summary or a 
pointer to the issues?

>IMNSHO we have no choice but to adopt the stance that at least Debian and
>RedHat have taken and that is to patch coreutils so that the old behaviour
>is preserved. I know there will be folks who object to this. Fine, your
>distro your rules. But for the LFS book there is really no choice. I have
>thought about this long and hard and have come to the conclusion that
>patching is the correct way to go for the general case. For those who want
>pain, the new "reject old syntax" behaviour can still be had by setting an
>environment variable, or you can just elect not to use the patch and deal
>with the consequences yourself.
>Here is the proposed patch:
>There are still plenty of ongoing heated discussions happening around the
>place where diehard toolchain developers think the coreutils maintainers
>have done the wrong thing with this whole affair. I tend to agree with them.
Again, what is "the wrong thing"?

  -- Bruce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list