On 18/03/09 Alan McKinnon said: > You said "glibc is the basis of the whole system". That's not quite true, > it's actually "glibc provides the C library, which is a collection of basic > function calls that just about every other program uses sooner or later"
I wasn't sure if any interface changes had been made. Looking at the glibc 2.8 release notes, it doesn't look like it but I wanted to check before upgrading. It makes me nervous. :) > If there's an issues, revdep-rebuild will pick them up. Ok, good. > Sometimes, glibc is all fsck'ed up. Like sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r1. It > looks great, till you start firefox and find that it doesn't run anymore... So, how would I know, in general, whether it's safe to upgrade when it appears in my emerge output? Just ask here? My BSD box has a /usr/ports/UPDATING file that I check before upgrading ports for any notices... > No, glibc might need updated kernel headers. The compiler uses them when > building glibc - the headers tell the compiler what data structures, > functions etc look like so that the glibc it builds can talk to whatever > kernel you choose to run later. So will it use /usr/src/linux by default? If so then I'm ok... > The only time you really need to update the kernel headers is if they > provide some new features you want to take advantage of. The interface that > the kernel provides to userspace is virtually frozen and Linus simply never > changes it. Good to know. > In short, updating glibc is as safe as updating any other piece of software, > as long as it has no known major bugs that cause you issues. Ok, thanks for the response. Mike -- Michael P. Soulier <msoul...@digitaltorque.ca> "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." --Albert Einstein
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
