Archaic archaic at
Wed Feb 4 03:10:02 PST 2004

On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 03:46:56PM +1100, Ryan.Oliver at wrote:
> 16th Jan.
> That's for base LFS, you guys'll probably have to live on the bleeding edge
> of glibc cvs if building with gcc-3.4
> (I'm still waiting on the --start-only-if-used/--end-only-if-used
> stuff to go into binutils before I go back to 3.4,
> cancellation issues building glibc+nptl w 3.4 ...)
> For the relro stuff however you can track changes to elf/dl-reloc.c
> (you'll probably also want to track changes to elf/rtld.c)

We aren't using gcc-3.4, but if the only changes that apply are the
above mentioned dl-reloc.c and rtlf.c, it would be easier if we stuck to
the version of glibc that the LFS book uses and just apply a patch to
update those two files.

> Actually, funnily enough there was nothing listed as changed
> between 28th and 30th, so Roberts cvs pull from the 29th
> actually was, funnily enough, probably fortuitously correct ;-)

So what's the problem with the 2.3.4 symbols in version.h? If they cause
no problems at this time, should the LFS book also use the version from
the 28th? Or should we just do a conglomerate patch that updates the
20040116 to 20040128? If the ancillary additions make no matter to LFS
or us, wouldn't it be easier to just have both books using the same one?
Should I go and find the people who decided not to make glibc releases
anymore and string 'em up by their big toes? ;)


If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would
... [be] the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is

- Henry David Thoreau

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list