Glibc-2.3.3 tarball

Robert Day zarin at localhost.localdomain
Mon Jan 12 11:47:14 PST 2004

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 14:39, James Robertson wrote:

> 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.

The simple answer is that the glibc team does not plan on releasing
anymore tarballs, period. So sooner or later we are going to have no
choice but to either make our own tarball, or show users how to get the
version from CVS (most likely a tiomestamped release from teh cvs
repository that was used to build the LFS they are following)

The more complex answer, well, if there is one, it's beyond my knowlege

  Rob Day (BOFH)

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list