glibc

dperkins at techangle.com dperkins at techangle.com
Wed Sep 15 09:33:12 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
>
> --
> James Robertson -- jwrober at linuxfromscratch dot org
> Reg. Linux User -- #160424 -- http://counter.li.org
> Reg. LFS User   -- #6981   -- http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
> LFS Bugzilla Maintainer    -- http://{blfs-}bugs.linuxfromscratch.org
> --
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page
>

Thanks.  I can't say I am impressed on being forced to go to CVS instead
of using an official stable version.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list