Archaic wrote: > On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 05:15:43PM -0400, Jon Grosshart wrote: > >>As I stated earlier, many of my older/working drivers are breaking >>with each subsquient release of 2.6.xx.... > > > Can't you save yourself a lot of hassle and stop upgrading the kernel? > Go back to the last kernel that worked well for you and merely apply > security patches to it instead? >
You know, thats a capital idea..... :-) That was my very first thought when I started having problems but, like so many others, I'm addicted to the idea of always running the 'Latest and Greatest' of everything.... I can live with glibc and GCC being older versions, namely for stabilities sake, but I MUST UPGRADE EVERYTHING ELSE!!!!! I'm not one to trust people when they say something unless I can verify it, but yea... You guys were right. Trying to use a different glibc is a nightmare... I did the whole seperate linux-threads thing, omitted nptl and for other reasons, omitted tls... Same version of glibc tho. When ever I would try to run ANY binary on my system, I'd get: /lib/libc.so.6: "whatever binary I would try to run": /lib/libc.so.6 "something,something" could not find PRIVATE_GLIBC in "something,something" Or something to that effect... It pretty much told me that I would have to recompile every single binary on my system because they already had something hard-coded into them with relation to my old glibc.... I might still try different variations of the build. Maybe all the companion libs that those binaries use are compiled with the newer tls interface and it would have worked if I hadn't omitted TLS support in my new glibc... Don't know for sure what those errors were about... Sigh.... Next time around, I'll have to think of these things before I start. Thanks again everyone for your input. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
