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

call for ports to begin using 2.4.0 headers for glibc

Well, the big deal is that to enable LFS on glibc, it must be compiled
against 2.4.0 headers. This does not break when running on 2.2.x
kernels. However, I have found that on sparc atleast, somethings that
were compiled against non-LFS glibc-2.2 do not work with LFS enabled
glibc-2.2 until recompiled (this does not affect glibc 2.1.3 bins from
potato running under LFS glibc-2.2). Among them appear to be ssh and

The problem appears to stem from fxstat in libc-nonshared.a. Since I
cannot retroactively go back and fix this incompatibility, I am hoping
that all archs can start using 2.4.0 headers to compile the latest glibc
2.2.1, to avoid this becoming a long term mess.

So far, sparc and i386 have been using 2.4.0 headers since about glibc
2.2-6. I am going to start doing powerpc myself soon (the only other
arch I build myself). I would like all other archs to follow suit
(whoever builds glibc for that particular arch), even if it means using
local 2.4.0 source (and not something in the archive) so long as you
plan to fill this gap once a 2.4.0/2.4.1 source is available in sid.

Also, if any ports currently have issues compiling the latest glibc,
contact me directly and immediately. I am more than willing to spend the
time working things out. I just spent some crunch time with Bdale for
ia64 (whom I also work with for hppa). So you new ports (mips? sh?) let
me know now if there are any issues (and you old timer ports too :).

If you have any questions/concerns/comments, email me privately.

PS: Mips maintainers, as soon as you have a base.tgz I can install, I'll
get this Indy going and start doing glibc builds myself to upload along
with ppc, i386 and sparc. Any other ports that want me to keep them in sync,
feel free to donate h/w.


/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
`  bcollins@debian.org  --  bcollins@openldap.org  --  bcollins@linux.com  '

Reply to: