Re: new binutils and glibc-2.2

[Christoph Martin <martin@uni-mainz.de>]

Guido Guenther writes:
 > On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:59:58PM +0100, Christoph Martin wrote:
 > > Guido Guenther writes:
 > >  > On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 07:25:13PM +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote:
 > >  > > On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 03:22:23PM +0100, Christoph Martin wrote:
 > >  > > > 
 > >  > > > after I built binutils with the patches from
 > >  > > > ftp.ds2.pg.gda.pl/pub/macro/SRPMS/ I could successfully build
 > >  > > > glibc-2.2 where the ld.so is working now.
 > Just to get this straight...what patches exactly did you apply between
 > binutils 2.10.1.0.2-1.1 and -1.2 and which ones between -1 and -1.1? 
 > Regards,

well its something like a bootstrap

-1   is the native build, built with the old (buggy) ld
-1.1 has the patches from ftp.ds2.pg.gda.pl/pub/macro/SRPMS/, but is
     still built with the old (buggy) ld (from -1)
-1.2 has the same patches like -1.1, but is build with the new ld
     (from -1.1)

so:
  - don't use -1
  - use -1.1 together with glibc-2.1.95. It will not run with
    glibc-2.2. 
  - use -1.2 together with glibc-2.2. It is linked with glibc-2.1.95
    but is not able to load the shared libraries of 2.1.95

All the packages I uploaded to ftp.uni-mainz.de are build with -1.1,
linked against glibc-2.1.95 and running with glibc-2.2. I was able to
create a chroot environment with these packages and the binaries of
the normal Debian archive.

As you see, it is not the case, that we have to remove all packages
linked against glibc-2.1.95, but we have to check which packages are
broken and they must be rebuild. I suppose it is mostly libraries. 

Christoph