On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 07:16:07PM -0800, David Benfell wrote:
> > I serioulsy suggest that you downgrade to your OS's latest supported glibc,
> > unless there is a specific reason you need a later one. Building glibc from
> > source is not for amateurs.
> >
> I think I've done just that:
>
> benfell:~ # ls -al /lib/libc*
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4070534 Sep 20 09:07 /lib/libc.so.6
Er, why is libc.so.6 not a symlink? Doesn't ldconfig give a warning?
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Nov 14 10:39 /lib/libcom_err.so.2 ->
>libcom_err.so.2.0
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 8133 Jul 29 07:33 /lib/libcom_err.so.2.0
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 61180 Sep 20 09:07 /lib/libcrypt.so.1
> benfell:~ # rpm -qf /lib/libc.so.6
> shlibs-2.1.3-163
>
> This is the latest version of glibc that SuSE offers. "rpm -vf
> /lib/libc.so.6 --verify" returns no output, so I presume all is well,
> but just to be sure, I did "rpm -a --verify | less" and saw output
> consistent with what I believe I've done to the system.
>
> Next, I went looking for libresolv (note the before and after shots
> separated by an updatedb):
How about resolv.h? I'd remove everything glibc-related in /usr/local/lib
and /usr/local/include if I were you.
> I think this is the wrong place for a religious war on Debian, but I
> guess I did start it. I'll only say that from what I've seen, they
> have lots of problems with their unstable branch. And they do warn
> you about this. My approach has, so far, generated less difficulty,
> mainly because I focus on packages for which there have been security
> alerts. The solution for a security alert on "su" turns out to be
> building against glibc 2.1.3 or higher. So I upgraded glibc (I think
> this is a lot easier than it used to be) on my other systems and
> rebuilt sh-utils successfully. Admittedly, in this case, it was
> unnecessary to upgrade to glibc 2.2.
I'm not sure you understand what Debian unstable is. It's the most recent
version of every package, rather than a set of packages that has been deemed
"stable". So, of course there will be problems. The question is, how bad
will those problems be? You can stop updating your unstable dist whenever
you want, or update selected packages.
Personally, I'm running unstable on several machines and I have never had a
major problem. But I tend to keep on top of the debian mailing lists, so I
generally find out ahead of time if there's a problem and avoid updating
until it's resolved.
Whatever you wind up doing, I would caution against upgrading glibc unless
there is a specific need. glibc is *supposed* to be backward-compatible, but
there are always problems that could occur with binaries that were built with
older versions.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "No matter how much it changes,
http://flounder.net/publickey.html | technology's just a bunch of wires
GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA | connected to a bunch of other wires."
38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A | Joe Rogan, _NewsRadio_
12:12am up 162 days, 22:28, 12 users, load average: 0.06, 0.03, 0.00
