On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 15:52:58 -0700, Net Llama! wrote: <snip> > > I assume that you're referring to the two entries that i wrote.
Yes, those are the ones. Thanks for writing them and for responding so promptly to my post. > As far as > gcc is concerned, yes its that easy. Its damn hard to wreck your box by > not building gcc right. I can see that the build itself should be straighforward. I had, in fact, successfully compiled gcc 3.x previously, but did not install it becauseof the concerns I mentioned. In particular I have read that gcc 2.x and 3.x are C++ binary incompatible. I may be wrong (which is why I am asking questions), but I understand this to mean that I may, for example, have C++ lib.foo on my system compiled under 2.x, together with applications compiled and dynamically linked against it. Now I install gcc 3.x and try to compile some new application. It won't compile (or maybe run?) against lib.foo because of the incompatibility, so I recompile lib.foo with 3.x. Now my existing applications won't link dynamically to lib.foo, so I have to recompile them. In itself this is not a very big deal - but I can imagine having an entertaining time tracking down problems in cases where there may be multiple dependencies. I believe that there are relatively sophisticated ways around these problems - by maintaining different library versions and changing makefiles accordingly, but (keen as I am), that really is beyond me - and in any case I have a living to earn - much of it from my linux box. > As for glibc, its relatively safe, but there's always a possibility >of > disaster. Ironically, just today, i completely wrecked a box that >was > running Redhat-6.2, where i tried to upgrade straight to glibc-2.2.5 (it > was runnning 2.1.2). But, most of that problem was just the enormity of > the upgrade, as nothing else had been upgraded yet. I've successfully > upgraded several other boxes' glibc without a hitch. While there are > always going to be some exceptions, most things will _not_ need to be > recompiled after upgrading glibc. Of course it also heavily depends on > what version of glibc you have, and which you're upgrading to. rpm will > have to be recompiled, as it depends heavily on glibc's locale > libraries. zlib (and anything that depends on it) might also have to be > recompiled. But none of that is a showstopper, and won't incapacitate > your box if you can't get to it right away. Well, as said, I am going from glibc 2.2.5 to (I suppose), 2.3.2. It may be an advantage that I run LFS, so > 95% of everthing on my system was compiled locally and I have a pretty good understanding of the geography of what I have. I don't even have rpm on the box. I suppose, however, that I hanker after some kind of certainty - a set of instructions telling me precisely what will have to be recompiled so that I can get on and do it rather than wait and see what does or does not break. >> I my system well backed up - so I am not worried about losing it - but >> I don't want to get started only to screw up because the sxs guidance >> is assuming something(s) I don't know. > > Well, i don't know what you don't know :) It would fill encyclopaedias. >If you've got questions, or > special circumstances, please ask. We're all hear to help. Thanks again. Geoff _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
