Re: Glibc 2.2 and potato

[cjw44@flatline.org.uk (Colin Watson)]

Michael@Meding.net wrote:

[Hmm, I think you sent this to both me and the list *in different
messages*; please don't ...]

>Colin Watson wrote:
>> Michael@Meding.net wrote:
>> >curious as I am I was wondering if it would be possible to fetch glibc
>> >2.2. from woody and do a apt-get source --compile and then an install
>> >on a potato system.
>> 
>> Why not just upgrade to the woody version of the libc6 package? Since it
>> doesn't depend on anything, that shouldn't be a problem, and it's likely
>> to fit into your system better (not to mention satisfy dependencies more
>> smoothly) than a self-compiled version.
>
>Thanks for your answer. But why should that fit better ? If I do a
>apt-get source --compile it should give me the *deb files and all
>dependencies should be met then ? Or do I think wrong here ?

Buh, I'm being stupid - I was just arguing yesterday about why binary
packages are OK and compiling from source isn't necessarily the One True
Way to get software, and the wrong triggers fired in my brain. :)

It should give you the same results, yes, assuming you have the right
build-depends. For using different kernel headers, you should be able to
work out where they're expected to go by reading debian/rules etc. in
the source archive. I'd be careful about applying aggressive
optimizations; a lot of the higher ones can be a little risky. But it
may be worth a shot if you believe libc6 to be a major bottleneck in
your system. (Personally, I think disk I/O, memory caching, and the like
are much more serious bottlenecks than the C library, but you can always
try it.)

-- 
Colin Watson                                     [cjw44@flatline.org.uk]