Glibc-2.3.3 tarball

Ken Moffat ken at
Sat Jan 10 15:04:26 PST 2004

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Greg Schafer wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 01:33:48PM +0000, Ken Moffat wrote:
> >  Sounds good for CVS, but I hope somebody is going to branch it before
> > 5.1 heads for release ?
> No, the plan is to get Glibc in before we branch. Otherwise there is little
> value in a 5.1 release at all IMHO. A few upgraded minor pkgs and few bugfixes?
> Big deal! We need to get the new Glibc in now so that the big 6.0 upheavals
> are more bearable. It's the smart thing to do.

 Call me pessimistic, but I'd put the recent kernel security issues as a
major reason to issue an "errata", if we were a distro.  Which means I'd
like to see a release ASAP.  Unless I've misunderstood you, people have
been testing bleeding-edge lfs-derived builds with 2.3.3 and 2.6
kernels, but 2.3.3 hasn't made it into our CVS yet.  To me, that
suggests it needs wider testing before it is promoted to an LFS release.

> All reports of new Glibc use are positive. Anyone who follows Glibc
> development will agree. They didn't give me this toolchain manintainers job
> for nothing! :-)

 Yep, your call on whether it goes in.  If you're happy then release
away.  The thought of people using a 2.4.22 kernel and putting public
services onto it scares me.

This is a job for Riviera Kid!

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list