LFS 6.0 kernel 126.96.36.199 -> 2.6.10 ?
jeremy at jutley.org
Fri Jan 14 10:54:21 PST 2005
>> it *can* be rebuilt, but does not *have* to be rebuilt. The kernel
>> maintainers (generally) are careful to maintain the ABI in major
>> kernel versions so newer kernel versions will be backwards compatible
>> with applications compiled against older headers.
>> However, as you've pointed out, if you wish to use the new features,
>> then yes, a recompile of glibc (at least) is required.
>> -- -
>> Steve Crosby
> I was under the impression that binutils, glibc, and gcc should never
> be updated, presumably because most everything depends upon the old
> versions. I got this impression - two years ago - from a blfs-support
> thread which I can no longer find. I've since noticed that one can
> build alternative versions of gcc alongside the existing one, (e.g.,
> Anyway, who can set me straight? Are there packages one must not
> update for fear of breaking everything?
GCC, and binutils, for the most part, can be upgraded on the machine
safely. Glibc, on the other hand, is a completely different beast.
Small, incremental upgrades are usually safe, for example from 2.3.2 to
2.3.3 would usually be safe to do. Larger upgrades, say from 2.2.3 to
2.3.2, would not be advisable. The reason for this, is that basically
the entire system depends on glibc's libraries (/lib/libc.so.6), and
massive problems can occur if changes are too widespread.
More information about the lfs-support