James Robertson jwrober at
Wed Sep 15 08:53:48 PDT 2004

Dennis J Perkins wrote:
> I just noticed that as of Aug 3, there is a 2.3.3 glibc tarball at the 
> GNU site, but the test version of LFS is using 2.3.4 from CVS.  I don't 
> know what the differences are between the two versions are, but I was 
> wondering why testing is using 2.3.4.  Is 2.3.3 already that obsolete or 
> is there something in 2.3.4 that is essential?
> I'm not criticizing this decision.  I'm just curious.

IIRC, there as discussion on this in the list a little while ago.  The 
glibc 2.3.3 on the GNU site is not that current.  It is a tagged version 
from last year.  It just took till now for them to create it as there is 
still some controversy on tagged versions of glibc.  The glibc for 5.1.1 
book is newer and we are getting some nptl stuff from the 2.3.4 version 
for the new book.  Hence the reason we are using it.


James Robertson -- jwrober at linuxfromscratch dot org
Reg. Linux User -- #160424 --
Reg. LFS User   -- #6981   --
LFS Bugzilla Maintainer    -- http://{blfs-}

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list