Glibc-2.3.3-lfs-5.1? (was Re: QLFS project announcement)

Robert Connolly robert at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Sep 2 10:28:21 PDT 2004


On September 1, 2004 09:35 pm, Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au wrote:
> > I think it was made to be patched. The glibc-2.3.3-lfs-5.1 tarball
> > works much better
>
> When it was put together it was done with HLFS in mind ;-)
> One of the reasons it took a while (along with ensuring it tested well
> on x86, ppc etc)
>
> I'll have some time freeing up in the next 2 to 3 weeks, will be
> testing toolchain builds with an alternative method...
>
> Any preference to which toolchain components I should start
> hacking on?

I haven't had anything good happen with gcc-3.4.1, I'm not sure why its so 
picky... glibc doesn't like it. I think switching back to hjl binutils would 
be better then keeping fsf's. Hjl's beta has the relro feature and fsf will 
likely take a long time before releasing 2.16 w/ relro. Also had extra 
problems with gcc-3.4.1 with propolice with make bootstrap.

So ida know, I haven't found anything at all that's stable beyond the last 
hlfs book (gcc-3.3.3 + binutils-2.15 + glibc-2.3.3-lfs-5.1). If 
lfs-6.0-testing is near stable I would be surprized. Let me know what works 
for you with or without the hlfs patches.



More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list