On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:12:11 +0100 "Armin K." <kre...@email.com> wrote:
> On 06/14/2012 03:42 AM, Ken Moffat wrote: > > In either case, it doesn't match any version of the book (old glibc > > and make, very recent gcc and binutils), so I assume you have > > updated some packages but not others ? Doing that is fine, but if > > it breaks you can get unusual problems, perhaps this is one of them. > > > > And at the risk of boring people, and attracting scorn from those > > who *do* update glibc versions in-place, I repeat that the only > > recommended way to update glibc versions on LFS is to make a new > > build on a different partition. > > Who recommended that? Did upstream do it? I don't recall having any bad > failures with that one. That' because you are new here. > LFS tends to scare people of upgrading stuff. Your distro, your rules > Same for Linux API Headers. No one said that your system will explode if > you upgrade API headers from 3.2.1 to 3.2.12 for example, those are just > headers ... Same for glibc. Glibc claims to be backwards-compatible, but > not forward compatible. Programs compiled on 2.13 can run on 2.15 very > well (well, there has been recent RPC stuff change, but that means that > only some and not ALL apps need to be recompiled after upgrade in order > to link with libtirpc to use these functions). Also, that's how binary > programs work. Binary program was compiled on, eg glibc2.3 or such, but > still runs on glibc 2.15. Installing a new Glibc over the currently installed Glibc risks breaking programs in strange and unpredictable ways. The ones to worry about are Gcc and Binutils. You may end up unable to compile and have to start again booting from a live CD. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
