[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Etch glibc ...

Tom Evans wrote:
> I just wanted to mention that while the "stable" glibc is still broken, 
> a few people are trying to look at it - I recommend people check out the 
> conversation at:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=325600
> I'm glad to hear that a new alphaserver is coming online for Debian devs 
> to use - I really don't feel "happy that we manage to get a glibc 
> package for alpha".

I reported elsewhere that version 2.3.999.2-11 (glibc-2.4) seems to work
fine, and Uwe reported that libc6.1_2.5-1_alpha.deb is working also.  If
for some reason people require glibc-2.3, they will have to retrieve the
sources for the stable package and apply the appropriate workaround patch
(for the defunct processes issue).

What I didn't report elsewhere was how long it took to do the complete
2.3.999.2-11 package build (in case anyone else is contemplating doing
this)...  Eight hours on my PWS 433au (576 MB RAM) with the current
stable 4.1 compiler suite.

Bob Tracy                   WTO + WIPO = DMCA? http://www.anti-dmca.org

Reply to: