Issues with LFS glibc-2.3.3 tarball

Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au
Mon Feb 2 00:00:04 PST 2004






Greetings all,

We may want to reconsider the version of glibc-cvs we are supplying
as a tarball for the 5.1 release.

Interesting reading
(Roland McGrath, versioning thread on libc-hackers
 Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:31:06 -0800 )
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-hacker/2004-01/msg00067.html

quote
----------------------------------------------------------------
We have not really had "release freezes" (at least lately).  But there
are "quiet" periods where ABIs are not being perturbed and everyone is
focussed on stabilizing changes.  For example, since version.h was
bumped to 2.3.3, there were no ABI additions and there were lots of
necessary bug fixes in recent weeks.  Only in the last few days have
2.3.4 symbols been added.  Up until then, the trunk could have been
said to have been in release freeze for 2.3.3 (if we had such a formal
process, which we don't).  If we did make release branches, we might
not want to have made one before 2004-1-13 or so.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Connolly has found issues on hlfs concerning some broken conftests
using the designated tarball (albeit with -fpie)
http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/hlfs-dev/2004-February/000368.html

Others may be lurking that were fixed with the "lots of necessary bug
fixes in recent weeks"

We may want to consider creating a new tarball from somewhere between
2004-01-13 and 2004-01-18, pref last update before the 2.3.4 symbols
started going in.

Ahhh the joys of pulling source from CVS.

Will investigate on this end anyway...
Thoughts?

[R]




More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list