Re: gcc done, eglibc problem
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Finn Thain dixit:
>
> >You don't need to patch anything. If the patch gets merged then it would
> >be possible to increase 2.6.16 to 2.6.32, which is desirable (to me) but
> >not necessary.
>
> It’s necessary for any package I upload, for the following reason:
>
> From an earlier eMail I cannot find right now, when I questioned
> the bootability and usability of the archive once the migration
> has started, I got the answer that the eglibc preinst refuses to
> let dpkg install it if the kernel running is too old. This means
> that it must know that we need a kernel > 2.6.29,
I'm not sure exactly in what ways eglibc will fail on < 2.6.32-23, but
you're welcome to try it...
It doesn't matter, though, because with libc_MIN_KERNEL_SUPPORTED we
aren't changing dependencies. Setting --enable-kernel=2.6.16 simply makes
the libc more backwards compatible (to whatever extent that it can work
without TLS).
So I really have no idea what your objection is.
If you don't want to make the change, because you don't know what it
means, that's fine, I'll file a bug report and get the maintainers to do
it.
Finn
> because other- wise, the system might Do Bad Things™ during an upgrade
> and fail because it installs a TLS libc on a non-TLS-capable system.
>
> I’m trying to do things as correctly and as close to the Debian way as
> possible, no matter what comfort or tradition says.
>
> bye,
> //mirabilos
>
Reply to: