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

Re: glibc-2.3.1 release



On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 10:21:02AM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:

> >Are there other build related things that people want to see hacked
> >on?

> That was quick.

2.3.1 was for obvious immediate problems with 2.3, and now they've
reopened the tree for developpment.  That's why I'm waiting until
Monday night or so.  That will give folks the weekend and Today/Monday
(for those who only work on glibc during paid hours) to get some of
their patches in.

> I have glibc 2.3 packaged on freebsd-i386 now, although it has some 
> quite large patches. I'll make a diff for the debian build scripts.

Please send this as soon as you're able.  Since gotom and I are both
hacking on the build environment, I don't want to stray so far that I
can't tell how to apply the patch.

> The major change is that the package should be libc1 on
> freebsd-i386.  This is because glibc upstream decided that soname
> should be 1. (Recent native libc is .4 or .5.) There are also a
> couple cases where I alter linux vs. hurd tests in
> debian/rules. (e.g. ifeq gnu to ifneq linux.)

All good - The rules already handle three different SOVERSIONS (6,
6.1, and 0.3) for Debian.  Abstracting the linux/hurd/freebsd tests
further can only be good, too.

Tks,
Jeff Bailey

-- 
learning from failures is nice in theory...
but in practice, it sucks :)
 - Wolfgang Jaehrling



Reply to: