[blfs-dev] glibc errors in blfs packages on i686
zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com
Thu Aug 29 14:25:38 PDT 2013
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 02:43:30PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:02:41AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >> OK, I'll do a -rc2 today. I think it best to slip the stable release to
> >> September 7. Should we update to the newer gettext, kbd, and/or kmod at
> >> the same time? Those all seem to have lower potential for problems than
> >> the glibc sed.
> > I'm not in favour of updating anything except glibc.
> I understand your point of view. Looking at things from a slightly
> different perspective, I don't use kbd at all. kmod is pretty much a
> non-issue for me because I really minimize modules. Right now on my
> development system, none are loaded. It will load SCSI_DEBUG when
> running util-linux tests. Looking at gettext, the release in the book
> is from June. From the latest release changelog:
> * windows/gettext.rc: Update copyright year.
> * NEWS: Mention libasprintf change and Tcl bug fix.
> That's it.
> The idea of including these is that there is a low probability of the
> newer packages causing problems and even if there are, the impact would
> be small.
> I will update to the latest kernel. We already say in the book to do
> Those are my observations. If we need to retest, testing everything at
> once would be easier.
> All that said, I'm willing to do what we collectively think best.
> -- Bruce
Sorry it's taken me a while to reply, I've been doing a different
sort of tagging with metaflac.
For kbd, I guess the most likely problem would be a
less-than-optimal set of instructions. As I noted in the ticket,
I'm undecided whether a separate libkbd.so is worthwhile or not
For kmod, I guess it works or it doesn't. NB we warn about running
the util-linux tests as root, but running as a user doesn't load the
SCSI_DEBUG module (I tested as a user on my i686, without enabling
that kernel option).
Certainly, the gettext changes do sound harmless.
OTOH the more we change for newer and shinier versions, the less
reason people have for respecting the -rc name.
Are we going to keep the 7.4 tags showing 7.4 ? On the grounds
that whatever changes in -rc2 is _unlikely_ to break BLFS, I suppose
we could leave them. Unless someone finds a problem.
das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce
More information about the blfs-dev