--- Douglas J Hunley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Net Llama babbled on about: > > I've started to grow rather tired of the fact that all of the boxes > that > > i'm running are glibc-2.1.x based, instead of the newer (and > > quasi-standard) glibc-2.2.x. This of course means that i must > always > > build from source in order to use anything, since virtually no one > is > > building RPMs against glibc-2.1.x anymore. > > I've heard the nightmare trainwrecks of improperly upgrading a box > from > > glibc-2.1.x to glibc-2.2.x, so i'm quite leary of doing it wrong. > > I've read the (rather outdated) SxS from Dave Bandel on upgrading > glibc, > > and what i'm taking away from it is basically that i can't just do a > > standard upgrade of glibc, since every binary on my box is dependent > > upon the existing version for functionality. So, the only safe way > to > > do the upgrade is to actually install the newer glibc-2.2.x > side-by-side > > with the older glibc-2.1.x, and then for anything i compile in the > > future, explicitly specify that it should be compiled against > > glibc-2.2.x. > > > > So, am i right, or am i missing something? Any other gotchas? > > not really what you asked for, but since you're doing this, might as > well go > 2.4 ... it seems to be the most stable 2.x glibc yet from what I've > seen/heard
Well, i asked for advice & help on how to do this. If i'm going to do this, can you let me know whether my method is correct? ===== ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux FAQ & Step-by-step help: http://netllama.ipfox.com . __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
