Re: 1.1.2 Prerelease

[Santos Halpar <sjhalpar@yahoo.com>]

nbecker@fred.net wrote:
> I'm going to try building 1.1.2 on my glibc2.0.7/egcs-1.1.1 system.
> I will then build glibc-2.1.  I think I need to now rebuild 
> libstdc++-2.9, right?

That's what the rumor around the campfire is.  I'd rebuild libstdc++
after installing glibc-2.1.

> I will then try installing glibc-2.1 and (assuming I'm not dead yet) 
> see if the binaries still work.
>
> If glibc-2.1 install breaks everything, is there an easier way to
> remove it, other than restore everything from tape?

Been there, done that -- one of the 2.1 betas failed to function for
me.  Thankfully, I had copied the previous contents of /lib over to
another partition and had saved an "ls -al" of /lib to ensure I knew
where the symlinks had to point (ldconfig is statically linked on my
system, but it's nice to have a sanity check).

Since then, I've done two things:

1.  Use LD_PRELOAD and LD_LIBRARY_PATH promiscuously when testing new
libraries.  Build glibc-2.1, add the glibc build directory to the
front of LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and try running something.  e.g:

(LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/tmp/glibc-build:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH /bin/ls)

for zsh/bash/ksh.  [t]csh needs setenv, I guess.  This works quite
well.

2.  Keep a minimal bootable setup on a second partition.  Probably a
good idea anyway.  Or keep some rescue disks with a kernel that can
access your hardware around.  Or both.

No problems with glibc-2.1 final release (though there may be some
legal issues that make it hard to find), built with egcs-1.1.1; I
replaced glibc-2.0.7 and things kept running fine (read the glibc
docs about updating ncurses et alia; I didn't have any problems with
ncurses, but I rebuilt it anyway just to be safe).

--Sumner Hayes

this e-mail address may expire 1 April 1999; username pthisis, also
at yahoo.com, can be used to contact me after that time.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com