Re: glibc recompiling was Re: libc resolver problem solved (critical bug)
On Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 10:36:26 -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> 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
There's nothing inherently wrong with it. But we have to be _very_ sure
there's no upgrade scenario for users which will break dpkg and apt for them.
The best way to do that perhaps is for you to build the new libc6 (including
Conflicts: info for the affected dpkg and apt) and NMUs of dpkg and apt, and
make sure they're installed in the same archive upgrade run.
> > - 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.
Why? Just mv it in the "binary" target, and put a different link to it in
the -dev package. The idea is that it's not going to be used to run binaries
against, only to build fixed binaries (which will run with the broken libc
J.H.M. Dassen | RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may
jdassen@wi.LeidenUniv.nl | not be a better one than the one the blocks
| live in but it'll be a sight more vivid.
| - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan