Re: glibc recompiling was Re: libc resolver problem solved (critical bug)
On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 09:37:06 -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > If there are no reasonable objections I will upload a fixed version by the
> > end of the day.
> I've just done a quick test of what libraries are affected on my system
> find /lib /usr/lib -name '*so*' | xargs nm --dynamic \
> --undefined-only --print-file-name | \
> grep 'register_frame_info' | sed -e 's/:.*//' | sort | uniq
> and found
> in there. If I understand things correctly, this means that installing a
> fixed libc6 will break dpkg 220.127.116.11 , which is unacceptable.
So, what is wrong with recompiling dpkg against the new library? The old
library is broken, so we have to move, and forward is the only logical
> A similar test for binaries, shows "apt-get" to be affected.
> I'd like to propose the following approach:
> - fork of a libc6-fixed package which installs in a different location than
> /lib (e.g. /lib/fixed), and provide a matching libc6-dev.
> - Identify which other packages besides dpkg and apt that are likely to be
> essential for many people have versions that depend on
> (un)register_frame_info symbols, and recompile all of them.
> - Then fix the regular "libc6" package, and make it have explicit
> Conflicts: with the problematic versions.
The first item is not necessary, very difficult, and likely to deliver
its own set of problems.
Item two can't be done if you impliment item 1. Only by installing the new
library will we see which packages need to be recompiled.
If you advocate item 3 the other two are not necessary, and item 2 becomes
I have a fixed package ready to go, so lets move forward!
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-