Eek! Looks like my update didn't make it... I did get it to compile
and I think it's working... Yay!
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 12:19:38AM -0500, Adam McKenna wrote:
>
> 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?
>
Hmmm... ldconfig does not complain.
> > 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.
>
Yup. This was it. I'd nailed /usr/local/lib, but not
/usr/local/include. Maybe next time I'll remember.
> > 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.
>
At least with unstable, they're warning you. And with their scheme of
things, I accept that you're taking your life in your hands when you
use unstable. Fine, you're going for the ride, scary as it might be,
but that's your choice. Hell, I run development kernels on production
boxes and blithely upgrade glibcs. Who am I to criticize you for
that?
Their process is not one I trust. In theory, it should be a good one
because it includes the ability to audit code. In practice, I keep
hearing about major problems where they really, really break things,
and not just in unstable. So I don't think their process is working
well.
I won't soon forget how I had to run around to a bunch of my
co-workers' machines with a floppy disk. They had installed Debian,
for whatever reason it is that people choose Debian. And now they
didn't have a working dhcpcd. That made it tougher for them to
download any other fixes that needed to be applied. So there I was,
with my version of dhcpcd from a SuSE system...
This was not a new bug. I had encountered it on two previous attempts
to install Debian.
But when I ask Debian advocates about the dhcpcd episode, all I hear
is silence.
Lately, I've seen on an internal mailing list how they've gone and
broken about three packages in stable and are denying that there's any
problem whatsoever. A bunch of people where I work are pretty unhappy
about that.
If I recall correctly, one of those packages is mutt. This strikes me
as really, really strange. I think I've downloaded and built most of
the versions that have come out in the last couple years. While it
doesn't seem to handle Maildirs as well as I'd like, I can't say I've
actually had a broken one. So I'm wondering what happened to break it
on Debian.
Note I am specifically not criticizing Debian for its decision to drop
support for slink. While there's been plenty of grumpiness about
that, I believe they kept it on artificial life support for far too
long. From what I've seen on the lists, it's pretty much agreed that
potato took far too long to come out. But, this is a volunteer
effort. Life is like that.
Now one of our most talkative system administrators is crowing about
their decision to go with Red Hat. (This, after he arrived at the
company singing the praises of Debian.) And yes, he dared to say this
after Red Hat 7.0 came out. [Head bangs against top of monitor...]
Obviously, your mileage varies. So, evidently, does a lot of other
people's.
> 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.
>
I'm subscribed to a few of those lists myself. They generate a lot
more mail than I have time to go through. But yes, this would be the
way to do it.
> 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.
>
This I thought was the purpose of installing your upgraded glibc in
/usr/local/lib -- the old one is still around for whatever's linked
against it. That and, umm, not hosing your system while you try to
copy the library in with non-standalone utilities! (Yes, I've done
that. Ouch. But that's how I found out what glibc was for.)
--
David Benfell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
The grand leap of the whale up the Fall of Niagara is esteemed, by all
who have seen it, as one of the finest spectacles in nature.
-- Benjamin Franklin.
[from fortune]
PGP signature
