Re: glibc 2.1 progress
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 04:59:22PM -0500, Steve Dunham wrote:
> Ben Collins <bmc@visi.net> writes:
>
> (The big problems are at the end.)
>
> > Well, after finding out that this new glibc 2.1 without the chown patch
> > will also break X, I've changed my opinion slightly.
>
> Does it break X if you recompile X? (I would doubt it, since X works
> with 2.1.1 on Red Hat.)
So far recompiling has fixed things, so I would say yes.
> Well these are the issues - is there a consensus on what we should do?
> Recompile half of the distribution, or retain a one-way incompatiblity
> with Red Hat? (We can run RH stuff, but they can't run our stuff.)
This is going to be messy, the new libc6 is going to have to pre-depend
on atleast three packages (tar,dpkg,util-linux) so that upgrades will
go smoother. I'm all for recompiling for the sake of compatibility with
other systems. I will revert back and provide all the glibc 2.1.1
packages as well as tar and dpkg compiled against them. The very good
thing is that programs compiled with this new glibc are backward
compatible with slink.
> (A nice solution would be to find a way to force the linker to use the
> GLIBC_2.0 symbol while still making the GLIBC_2.1 symbol available to
> the loader, but I don't think that is possible.)
I've though about that, but the hack would have to remain forever (or
until libc7). I say we choke it up and get rid of this now.
I'll post when I have some packages available for download so that
others can start recompiling and testing. Once we feel we have
eveything pretty well covered, we can let those recompiled packages
through dinstall. Once they are in I'll let the libc6 packages through.
This should provide the least amount of problems.
--
----- -- - -------- --------- ---- ------- ----- - - --- --------
Ben Collins <b.m.collins@larc.nasa.gov> Debian GNU/Linux
OpenLDAP Core - bcollins@openldap.org bcollins@debian.org
UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems The Choice of the GNU Generation
------ -- ----- - - ------- ------- -- ---- - -------- - --- ---- - --
Reply to: