glibc-2.3 segfaults solved!

Matthias Benkmann matthias at
Sun Oct 6 14:20:28 PDT 2002

On Sun, 6 Oct 2002 23:58:10 +1000 Greg Schafer <gschafer at>

> On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 03:26:19PM +0200, Matthias Benkmann wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Oct 2002 18:35:02 +1000 Greg Schafer <gschafer at>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > I s'pose we could just revert the offending patch and hope for the
> > > best. But I'm not sure of the ramifications.
> > 
> > Revert patches in glibc just to faciliate a one-time transition?
> > That's even uglier than using sed on a binary.
> I detect a bit of humour in there MSB, even tho' there was no smiley..
> Oh well, it made me chuckle :)

No humor was intended.

> But that wasn't the response I was expecting.. More like "oh cool, here
> is something I would just love to get my teeth into and help debug!"

I never saw this as a debugging task (and I hate nothing more than
debugging other people's code, btw). It's an incompatibility that has to
be dealt with temporarily during an upgrade. Reverting patches to
eliminate the incompatibility basically defeats the purpose of the
upgrade. If I want a glibc 100% compatible with 2.2.4, I use glibc 2.2.4. 
If a bash compiled against the new glibc crashed, that would be a
different story. That would be a bug to be investigated (by the bash
maintainer). But as I understand it that is not the case.

Believe it or not, the last thing I want to do is hack around in glibc
code. I will cut fingernails myself but I don't do heart surgery. glibc is
too important for amateurs to mess around with. I'm sure the change was
done for a reason. If the reason is valid or relevant is something that
can only be found out by getting in touch with the glibc developers. And I
don't have time or nerve for that. If you want to get in touch with
whoever made the change and find out what it does and why it was thought
to be a good idea despite the incompatibility, go ahead. I'll be happy to
read this information and contemplate whether reverting the change is a
good idea. But just reverting the change without this information is not
something I would ever consider for my own system or for the LFS book.


If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list