[roland at redhat.com: Re: More info on static binary/libnss* mystery]

Adam Trilling agt10 at columbia.edu
Mon Oct 7 07:30:35 PDT 2002

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Greg Schafer wrote:

> Future LFS could say something like:-
> "if your host distro has glibc-2.2.5 or older then you will need to
> apply this patch to glibc-2.3"
> We do stuff like that already for other packages so..

If the glibc people recommend against it though, we should make our final
LFS be sans-patch.  We're trying to be the best we can be, rather than as
good as redhat :)

If I understand things correctly, the problem occurs after you build glibc
without the patch inside chroot.  So here's what I propose:

1) build ch 5 normally
2) build glibc with patch
3) rebuild those parts of ch 5 which break in glibc 2.3, linking aginst
the patched glibc 2.3
4) rebuild glibc without the patch
5) continue as normal

If we do step 3 dynamically, will things we build work both with and
without the patch?  If so, maybe we could reorder ch 6 so that you don't
have to do any dynamic builds twice (except for glibc).

I might be able to do a test build of this tonight, so someone let me know
if I'm completely off-base before then.

Adam Trilling
agt10 at columbia.edu

char m[9999],*n[99],*r=m,*p=m+5000,**s=n,d,c;main(){for(read(0,r,4000);c=*r;

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

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list