Glibc-2.3.3 tarball

James Robertson jwrober at
Mon Jan 12 11:39:01 PST 2004

Greg Schafer wrote:
> Hi


Hi Greg and all.

Please forgive any potential ignorance on this subject, but why do we 
_want_ to bring upon ourselves the coreutils problem and the need for a 
non-official tarball release that we have to manage?  I am confused.  Is 
Glibc 2.3.2 not good enough?  I know (I think) that 2.3.3 has NPTL in it 
and 2.3.2 does not, but you only need that if you are running linux 
2.6.x right?  What else is in there that requires us to upgrade and ring 
trouble on ourselves.  We are not a distro and so do not do things like 
the distros do - rememeber?  With this coreutils issue coming to light I 
think it would be prudent to wait until the dust settles some more (even 
more?).  I know we want to be on the edge, but some things can wait 
until they stablize some.  Greg, I know you are the resident expert on 
the toolchain and Glibc is well within your area of control, but I am 
skeptical as to the need for this change at this time.  Can't we wait 
until we decide to get linux 2.6.x into the book?  I am still not sure 
if the whole "headers" thing got settled, which also effects Glibc and 
all the rest of the userland packages we install.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list