On 06/15/2012 09:32 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > alex lupu wrote: >> I'd like to offer a very strong (but polite) dissenting voice about the >> subject of NO-NO updating/upgrading "in place" which came up here once again. > >> IRONICALLY, the one and only problem that could possibly be ascribed to >> working "in place" is _exactly_ (and coincidentally) the one described >> in the (original) subject of this thread. > > I don't know where anyone said that you shouldn't update packages in > place. Except for glibc, I've been doing it when required for years. > > As for updating gcc, the better instructions for gcc are in BLFS, not LFS. > > BTW, this entire thread should be in LFS support, not BLFS support. > > -- Bruce
I've done many glibc updates in place in the not so recent past. As a matter of course, I would drop to runlevel 1 before make install, but have done it in the past as an example within a gnome-terminal in runlevel 5 without issue (search archives). I do immediately reboot afterward. Going way back now...I used to keep a statically linked copy of what is now know as coreutils laying around just in case (I can't even remember what the 3 packages were that combined to create coreutils now). At one point, there was a problem with the glibc install target using the install command, but I'm pretty sure that problem went away before linuxthreads did. That was a long time ago wasn't it? At any rate, I too build a new system when it is time, but tend to keep them around way longer than they need to be...I get attached and too lazy (not to mention lack of time), though I am about ready to give up this dinosaur (still running gnome-2.32). -- DJ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
