Dead Project? (I hope not)

Joe Ciccone jciccone at
Sat Aug 19 11:39:08 PDT 2006

Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Glibc I've not upgraded because I was put off by upstream's
> recommendation not to run it in production environments coupled with a
> couple of bugs I've read about on the lfs lists.  They've probably
> been fixed by patches, but I've lost track of those!  If anyone can
> recall what's required to get glibc-2.4 in the book, I'll gladly put
> it in.
This patch definitely needs to be added.

The openat patch really only applies if you're building glibc with
--enable-kernel=2.6.17. (uses 2.6.0 currently.) So It doesn't need to be
added, Just mentioning it for the people that may want to.

The 2 patches that are on the page now, glibc-2.3.6-linux_types-1.patch
and glibc-2.3.6-inotify-1.patch can be dropped. Inotify is built in 2.4
and I built xorg-7.1 twice last night without the linux_types patch.

It looks like there is a command to copy the inotify header to
/usr/include/sys which can also be dropped.

Other then the fact that I have no idea if there are any problems with
libidn (I don't use it), that looks like about it.

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list