Re: [GLIBC] glibc updates
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 07:10:17PM +0100, Thierry FLORAC wrote:
> Hi !!
>
> I'm actually using Zope on a Debian "Potato" GNU/Linux system, upgraded
> with a Linux-2.4.10 kernel (and associated required packages) but still
> using glibc-2.1.3.
> I have to bypass the Python/Zope file size limitation of 2 GB, and it
> seems that this involves a new glibc (2.2 or higher).
> So my questions are :
>
> - can I use libc6 binary packages provided with "testing" distribution,
> without broking dependancies or making old packages not running anymore
No, newer libc6 requires some updated packages from testing, which
brings in a whole slew of other deps. You might aswell update the whole
setup.
> - do I have to recompile libc6 from source (which seems to be a huge
> work... :-(( ) ??
No, just upgrade to testing. Libc6 there is compiled with LFS support.
> - do I have to make my APT "sources.list" file pointing to "testing"
> distribution to be able to upgrade my system completely (but this is a
> production system and I want to keep "as stable as possible") ??
Yes, you have to.
> - is there a more simple solution, just looking "on the Python side" ??
Not really. To support LFS fully, you need a 2.4.x kernel, and glibc
2.2.x. In order to build and use glibc 2.2.x, you need the gcc-2.95.4
with all it's patches from testing, aswell as binutils. In order for you
to recompile glibc 2.2 for potato, you will need to build atleast these
packages (not listed in order of builds, but yes that does matter):
db2
glibc
gcc-2.95
binutils
Unless you know what you are doing (no offense, but jusdging by the
questions you're asking, building all of this is not something you have
done before, and is well above the trivial mark), you are better off
taking advantage of all our efforts and just upgrading to testing :)
Ben
--
.----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----.
/ Ben Collins -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: