> From memory it's a major PITA to upgrade gcc or glibc on a running > system--I don't think I was ever successful. I never tried binutils but, > again from memory, the general rule was that anything in the toolchain > was going to present its own special set of piles of problems.
Like Steve said, an in place Glibc upgrade has a tendency to go wrong. It doesn't take much to mis-compile it just enough for existing installed programs to start segfaulting on you. Even if it's not because of the builder's doing. The crashing program in question could just be badly programmed (or wrongly compiled the first time around). A recompile or relink is sometimes your only solution. The "who truly is to be blamed" game can go on for a while. To check every program after a Glibc upgrade is tedious enough. I'd say hardly anybody would be excited to do that kind of grunt work. There's always the brute force way of recompiling all your packages after a Glibc upgrade, or at least your main software (things like X, email clients, window/desktop managers and so forth). If you automate that, it'll take away from the tediousness, but to a degree you're installing LFS from scratch again. Keeping that above bit in mind, most people probably skip a Glibc upgrade unless there's an actual reason to do so. If there is no performance or feature benefit to doing so, other than it being a thorn in your side (the old part of your otherwise spiffy new system), most would probably want to skip it and save the hassles that come with it. A minor Glibc version upgrade can typically be done a lot easier. Often there aren't any problems as far as I can remember. Gerard -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
