Drool... WAS --> Re: Autoconf Version 2.14.1

Jesse Tie Ten Quee highos at highos.com
Fri Jan 5 15:31:22 PST 2001


Yo,

On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 05:40:36PM -0500, Barry wrote:
> I think what is meant is:  Will compile correctly on...
> 
> without patches that is...and I'm reading minds here, so if I'm
> completely wrong, well...oh well :)

Affirmative.

> yeah, but I see where he's coming from... although, I want to impliment
> glibc-2.2 as soon as possible...there are some problems with 2.1.3
> (security and whatnot) that are addressed in 2.2...I still have to build
> a system with 2.2, which I hope to do this weekend... but it will most
> likely be the next weekend, knowing my schedule...

I'm not that worried about Glibc, i'm more worried about the compiler.
(that is if i can use glibc 2.2 and gcc 2.95.3 without patch'ing id like
to see the book use it then, but i don't want to see LFS just ditch
glibc 2.1.3 right away, it's been working just fine for a long time now,
no real big reason to just ditch it because something new has some out,
besides, packages are still being updated to work right with glibc 2.2)

Didn't your dad ever say, don't fix something that isn't broken..

Improvements are one thing, i'm just trying to make sure everyone
doesn't just rush into this, like everyone else is, just clam down, you
don't _always_ have to be on the bleeding edge, it's not going to kill
you to wait a little while.....

Don't you guys believe in software maturing after a while? (or in this
case, everything else maturing to be more campatible with each other ;)

> but, 2.2 is a major release...sort of a .0 in some ways (should be
> glibc-2.2.0 :> ...)

No, there isn't any guessing about it, 2.2 _is_ a major release.

> I haven't noticed any issues that I can track to glibc-2.2 and
> gcc-2.95.2 (or EGCS 2.91.66)... But I can say that kernel 2.2.17 DOES
> NOT compile with glibc-2.2 and gcc-2.96 ... Of course, that's rh7's
> compiler... But I think that the difference here is that the gcc-2.95.x
> line is code-related to later EGCS releases... In otherwords, they
> shouldn't be all that different... generally speaking...
>
> whereas the gcc-3.0 line supposedly doesn't carry the same type of
> support as 2.95.2 did... so, again, major release syndrome...however,
> kernel 2.2.18 DOES compile with gcc-2.96 with my tests... Appearently,
> the problem was fixed...

The 2.2.17 compiler issue with RH7 and gcc "2.96" isn't related to GCC
but to the kernel, Linus has said that more then once, and it's fixed in
2.2.18+ (and should be in 2.4 now, if there ever was that problem, dunno)

> personally, I think that the mark should be when a major release
> (glibc-2.2) causes more patches to be added to code simply to make the
> code compile, then we shouldn't upgrade to that version... at least,
> regarding major software...

At least not right away, most compiling issues get resolved over a small
amount of time (like recent releases of most GNU tools have gotten rid
of Glibc 2.2 and newer Gcc "2.96"/3.0 problems)

> Has anyone had success building a clean gcc-2.95.2 source tree without
> patching it?
> How about Fileutils?
 
No, not to my knowledge (gcc)
 
> I mean, the fileutils problem was fairly major...on my system, ls didn't
> print to standard output... Now, perhaps that was the only problem and
> perhaps the patch fixed it, but I'll feel a little bit better once that
> patch is implimented into a release...
> 
> I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't mind patching and fixing things at
> all, but these base level programs are a little bit too important to
> have obscure gotcha's hanging around in....

Couldn't say it better..

> Perhaps the answer is to give an option for installing glibc-2.2 in the
> book... Perhaps that's a horrible idea from a support standpoint... but
> maybe it's the only way to please everyone...

That's why i was suggesting digging out the stable and development
(2.4.x and 2.5.x) release again.

At least this way, 2.4.x could still use glibc 2.1.3/gcc 2.95.x and
2.5.x could use glibc 2.2/gcc 2.95.x-3.0, then at least, over time if
there aren't any serious big problems 2.4.x can be phased out with 2.5.x
become 2.6.x

Now again that's a bit more work, but glibc 2.2 isn't a small update and
should be though out, imho

Dunno, it's Gerard's choice, just getting my CND0.02$ in.

PS, you can never please everyone, it's not possible ;)  but either way,
i'll be standing behind LFS no matter what choice/option (whatever) is
gone/taken, LFS is the most freaking stable installation i've ever seen and id
like to see it stay that way, but it's all the same, if that means more
traffic on the mailing lists, so be it...

-
Jesse Tie Ten Quee - highos at highos dot com

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list