Glibc-2.3.3 tarball

Greg Schafer gschafer at zip.com.au
Mon Jan 12 12:01:59 PST 2004


On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:39:01PM -0600, 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?

James, you need to stay abreast of the issues. If you can't, then you need
to respect the judegement of those that sre doing so i.e. me :-)

> I am confused.  Is 
> Glibc 2.3.2 not good enough?

No. There are apparent security issues (dunno how serious, but they are
there). There also compiler issues. Glibc-2.3.2 is better matched with
gcc-3.2.x. This is evidenced by the bazillion inlining failed type warnings
that are not present in 2.3.3. There are numerous other code improvements
worthy of calling it 2.3.3. Other distros are running much newer Glibc code
than us. Part of the LFS appeal is that it is up to date. In short, 2.3.2 is
now so old it ain't funny.

> 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?

NPTL has nothing to do with this upgrade.

> 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?

Wow, that is an extremely vague and unhelpful comment and almost insulting
to me.

> With this coreutils issue coming to light I 
> think it would be prudent to wait until the dust settles some more (even 
> more?).

Huh? This issue has been known about for half a year at least. See my para
at start of this mail.

>  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.

Your opinion, not mine.

> Can't we wait 
> until we decide to get linux 2.6.x into the book?

2.6 has nothing to do with this upgrade.

> 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.

In summary, James, I think it wrong for otherwise mostly dormant folks to
pop up out of the blue and cast judgement on matters they clearly have not
been paying attention to. This is open source. Those who do the work get to
make the calls. In this case, it is clear to me that it's a more than
appropriate upgrade. Consider this.. if the Glibc dev's had made a 2.3.3
tarball then folks like yourself probably wouldn't have batted an eyelid!
Ironic isn't it?



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list