Upgrading glibc

Björn Lindberg d95-bli at nada.kth.se
Fri Feb 28 10:56:53 PST 2003


jeroencoumans at gmx.net (Jeroen Coumans) writes:

> Björn Lindberg wrote:
> > jeroencoumans at gmx.net (Jeroen Coumans) writes:
> >>Björn Lindberg wrote:
> >>>Does anybody know of a safe way to upgrade glibc without risking
> >>>completely screwing up my system?
> >>
> >>Yes, install a new LFS :) No risk, no fun. You could try installing
> >>the new glibc on your system as a drop-in replacement; all apps should
> >>keep working.
> > What do you mean? Just build and install it on the running system
> > without any extra precautions?
> 
> Yes. Like I said, if you want to keep it safe and stable, build a new
> LFS. Now would be a good time to try pure_lfs :) But upgrading
> shouldn't be a problem; glibc is backwards compatible (if you apply
> the patch).

But I have so much software installed on this box. I simply don't have
the time right now to compile and re-install everything.

> >>If you do that with 2.2.5 -> 2.3.x,
> > Erm... actually I'm about to upgrade from 2.2.1. Trouble is, I've
> > started seeing programs that want 2.2.{3,4,5} or better to work.
> 
> That may be a steep curve to upgrade from; you really should consider
> a new LFS.

Maybe I should only upgrade to 2.2.5 then. The thing I am a little bit
worried about is if my upgrade screws up my system, it would probably
be a bit difficult to revert back.

BTW, does the 2.3.1 only break /statically/ linked programs? I have
very few static binaries, so in that case I could probably just go
ahead and install 2.3.1 and the re-compile the few static ones.


Björn

-- 
War on Iraq, expected # of killed Civilians:
Iraq            500,000
USA                   0
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-chat mailing list