Hi Simon, That's interesting. It's usually so important to test a release for compatibility and stability, but it's pretty remarkable that they have such a solid reputation that the distros feel comfortable just dropping in the latest snapshot for a given release. It's awkward for me as an LFS learner, since I lack that experience with glibc. If there are problems with it, I'm unsure if it's something I did wrong in my compilation steps, or if I grabbed an incompatible source package. I'll just try to get over that. :)
Can you do me a favor? If you have a working LFS 6.4 build, can you check if you have /lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.3.2/libgcc_eh.a library? (Or the equivalent directory for you using your own target triplet) Bill --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Simon Geard <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Simon Geard <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: glibc problems > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 1:28 AM > On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 14:41 -0800, Bill Mason wrote: > > Hi, Glibc-2.8-20080929 is no longer available on the > Red Hat server > > mentioned in the LFS book, > > > ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/glibc/snapshots/glibc-2.8-20080929.tar.bz2. > Should this be added to the errata, with an alternate > location provided? I'm a little surprised that LFS 6.4 > is using a CVS snapshot of glibc, but I'm sure there was > a good reason for it. > > Just grab a newer 2.8 version then... 20081215 seems to be > the current. > > The short version is that the glibc guys believe a source > repository > should always be in a releasable state, that checking in > unproven code > is a no-no. Given that attitude, the most reliable set of > code for a > given branch (2.8 in this case) should always be the most > recent > snapshot from that branch, since it'll be as stable as > any other, and > will have all the available bug fixes for that branch. > > They were actually at one point looking at not doing > releases at all, on > the basis that Fedora and Ubuntu and friends could just > grab the latest > code from version control and ship their distribution with > it. That says > a *lot* about the confidence they have in their work - I > wish more > developers could honestly say the same. > > Simon. > -- > http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html > Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
