am I stuck with glibc2.2.5? - Linux

This is a discussion on am I stuck with glibc2.2.5? - Linux ; Has anyone else discovered what a royal pain in the ass it is to upgrade from glibc 2.2.x to 2.3.x under Suse linux? It seems that Suse went to great lengths to make it next to impossible to upgrade glibc ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: am I stuck with glibc2.2.5?

  1. am I stuck with glibc2.2.5?

    Has anyone else discovered what a royal pain in the ass it is to
    upgrade from glibc 2.2.x to 2.3.x under Suse linux?

    It seems that Suse went to great lengths to make it next to impossible
    to upgrade glibc by their installing components in nonstandard locations,
    linking most of the system binaries with version specific objects,
    and not providing a real migration from 2.2 based systems to 2.3 unless
    the customer is willing to purchase a complete distro upgrade.

    Like other power users I have a system that started out as a stock
    suse 8.1 installation but because of my requirements I quickly ended
    up with a hybrid system because I've installed and upgraded bunches
    of packages directly from the GNU source on the net. At this point I
    simply cannot use the suse RPM upgrade procedures because they will
    corrupt my customizations.

    I've tried several times to build and install glibc2.3.3 but each time
    I end up with an unusable system and I then must strip out the 2.3
    code and reinstall the 2.2 RPMs from the suse media.

    I've noted the following problems during my attempts

    1) installing 2.3.3 into a directory such as /glibc233 confuses ld.so
    and the suse ld.so which is under /lib will NOT recognize the new
    libc components even if I add them to the ld.so.cache

    2) when I install 2.3.3 directly over top of / the new ld.so causes
    system binaries to segfault and crash. This SEEMS to be any binary
    that has locale support compiled in such as ls and perl

    3) a really nasty difference between 2.2 and 2.3 where under 2.2 the /lib
    and /usr/lib are implicitely searched by ld.so where under 2.3 they don't
    seem to be searched unless explicitly in the cache...also, under 2.3
    LD_LIBRARY_PATH seems to be exclusive if it exists and will ignore the
    cache completely.

    These are my installation options:

    I erased nptl and am using the linuxthreads addon

    I use US/Eastern as my /etc/localtime and I do NOT set TZ

    # CFLAGS=-O3 ../glibc-2.3.3/configure --prefix=/ --includedir=/usr/include --infodir=/usr/share/info --mandir=/usr/share/man --enable-omitfp --enable-add-ons

    and

    # LANGUAGE=C LC_ALL=C make install

    Any clues why 2.3 is so utterly incompatible with 2.2, other than suse
    screwing with the default installation options so that we are tied to their
    packages forever? This actually gets me rolling on another rant:
    distros need to statically link system binaries instead of making them
    rely on shared objects! EVERYTHING under /sbin should be statically
    linked and static versions of common admin programs should be provided.


    and I'd prefer not to get into a distro flame war over this...just looking
    for constructive comments about how to upgrade to 2.3 without encountering
    additional pain.



    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

  2. Re: am I stuck with glibc2.2.5?

    Wiseguy wrote:

    > Has anyone else discovered what a royal pain in the ass it is to
    > upgrade from glibc 2.2.x to 2.3.x under Suse linux?


    It probably is in any distro. glibc really is a component at the core of the
    system. Upgrading it is inviting trouble. A distro to one that has the
    correct glibc probably is much easier.

    --
    Ruurd
    ..o.
    ...o
    ooo

  3. Re: am I stuck with glibc2.2.5?

    "R.F. Pels" scribbled on the stall wall:
    > Wiseguy wrote:
    >
    >> Has anyone else discovered what a royal pain in the ass it is to
    >> upgrade from glibc 2.2.x to 2.3.x under Suse linux?

    >
    > It probably is in any distro. glibc really is a component at the core of the
    > system. Upgrading it is inviting trouble. A distro to one that has the
    > correct glibc probably is much easier.


    grumble, grumble, grumble...I hate ALL distros and cannot create my
    own from source on a 56k dialup line...grumble, grumble, grumble

    and I REALLY need 2.3 since hardly anyone is producing executables for 2.2
    anymore...take a look at firefox. it is compiled for 2.3



    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

  4. Re: am I stuck with glibc2.2.5?

    Wiseguy wrote:
    >
    > Has anyone else discovered what a royal pain in the ass it is to
    > upgrade from glibc 2.2.x to 2.3.x under Suse linux?
    >
    > It seems that Suse went to great lengths to make it next to impossible
    > to upgrade glibc by their installing components in nonstandard locations,
    > linking most of the system binaries with version specific objects,
    > and not providing a real migration from 2.2 based systems to 2.3 unless
    > the customer is willing to purchase a complete distro upgrade.
    >
    > Like other power users I have a system that started out as a stock
    > suse 8.1 installation but because of my requirements I quickly ended
    > up with a hybrid system because I've installed and upgraded bunches
    > of packages directly from the GNU source on the net. At this point I
    > simply cannot use the suse RPM upgrade procedures because they will
    > corrupt my customizations.
    >

    You haven't got a SuSe Linux system then. If you installed
    lots of tarballs, and ignored the packaging system that came
    with your distro, then you are on your own.

    You'd probably be better off with a source-based distro like
    Gentoo or some LFS setup. Or FreeBSD.

    What you are basically saying is "I buggered up the
    packaging system and now it doesn't work". I have no
    sympathy. None whatsoever.

    Cheers,

    Cliff



    --

    Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

  5. Re: am I stuck with glibc2.2.5?

    Enkidu scribbled on the stall wall:
    > Wiseguy wrote:
    > >

    > You haven't got a SuSe Linux system then. If you installed
    > lots of tarballs, and ignored the packaging system that came
    > with your distro, then you are on your own.


    hello? I think I said that above, right? and I don't know ANYONE
    who really hacks that sticks with a distro packaging scheme and ties
    themself into just using the "approved" distro packages...not that
    it would make any difference since I don't believe glibc is
    upwardly compatible under suse, even using the RPMs, without purchasing
    a complete upgrade to the 9.x releases.

    > What you are basically saying is "I buggered up the
    > packaging system and now it doesn't work".


    Nope...If you knew what they hell you were doing then you'd probably
    better understand where I' coming from. so go back to your pretty icons,
    kiddo.


    > I have no
    > sympathy. None whatsoever.


    Read the frigging post before you go off, dude!
    I neither want nor require your sympathy or understanding.
    or your useless comments, for that matter


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

  6. Re: am I stuck with glibc2.2.5?

    * Enkidu Wrote in comp.os.linux:

    > What you are basically saying is "I buggered up the
    > packaging system and now it doesn't work". I have no
    > sympathy. None whatsoever.


    You read WAY too much into that post. It doesnt say that at all. I am
    sure the OP appreciates all that help you provided in your little
    tirade though.

    --
    David

  7. Re: am I stuck with glibc2.2.5?

    Wiseguy wrote:
    > Enkidu scribbled on the stall wall:
    >>
    >>You haven't got a SuSe Linux system then. If you installed
    >>lots of tarballs, and ignored the packaging system that came
    >>with your distro, then you are on your own.

    >
    > hello? I think I said that above, right? and I don't know
    > ANYONE who really hacks that sticks with a distro packaging
    > scheme and ties themself into just using the "approved"
    > distro packages...not that it would make any difference
    > since I don't believe glibc is upwardly compatible under
    > suse, even using the RPMs, without purchasing
    > a complete upgrade to the 9.x releases.
    >

    Duh! The person who sticks with the packaging system is the
    one who has a stable system and who can safely upgrade
    their system when the time comes. *If* you want to install
    stuff and upgrade safely, use the packages as much as possible.
    >
    >>What you are basically saying is "I buggered up the
    >>packaging system and now it doesn't work".

    >
    > Nope...If you knew what they hell you were doing then
    > you'd probably better understand where I' coming from.
    > so go back to your pretty icons, kiddo.
    >

    Well, I look after twenty or so Linux systems, and not one
    of them has an icon on it. So you miss your guess there.

    I know how to download and compile source tarballs, and have
    done it many a time. I even once ran a Free-BSD system and
    compiled the whole phreaking lot. Waste of time!

    My systems do have non-packaged applications on them, but
    I'd soon be able to replace them if I decided to upgrade.
    Because I have notes about what was done.

    You have made alterations to your system, without giving a
    thought as to making notes or keeping a record of what you
    have done, and THEN you have the GALL to blame the packaging
    system of the Distro that you mangled and massacred! You
    painted yourself into a corner and then yelled for help.
    What a baby! And you call yourself a hacker. What a joke!
    >
    >>I have no sympathy. None whatsoever.

    >
    >
    > Read the frigging post before you go off, dude!
    > I neither want nor require your sympathy or understanding.
    > or your useless comments, for that matter
    >

    Oh, so your post wasn't a cry for help then? It was just a
    whinge about the situation YOU got yourself into, eh?

    Cheers,

    Cliff


    --

    Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com

  8. Re: am I stuck with glibc2.2.5?

    R.F. Pels poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

    > Wiseguy wrote:
    >
    >> Has anyone else discovered what a royal pain in the ass it is to
    >> upgrade from glibc 2.2.x to 2.3.x under Suse linux?

    >
    > It probably is in any distro. glibc really is a component at the core of the
    > system. Upgrading it is inviting trouble. A distro to one that has the
    > correct glibc probably is much easier.


    You can do it, though. It takes some care. The glibc tar distribution
    has the necessary steps listed in the documents, I believe.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

  9. Re: am I stuck with glibc2.2.5?

    noone@uber.usachoice.net (Wiseguy) scribbled on the stall wall:

    > grumble, grumble, grumble...I hate ALL distros and cannot create my
    > own from source on a 56k dialup line...grumble, grumble, grumble
    >


    actually, as a followup I DO now have a vendor neutral homebrew installation up
    and running with glibc-2.3.5 and gcc-3.4.3...gcc-3.4.3 was actually more of a
    problem than the new glibc since a hellofalot of sourcecode is written with
    really ugly C/macro constructs that don't compile with the latest gcc compiler.

    --
    dual 2.8Ghz Xeon; 2GB RAM; 500GB ATA-133; nVidia powered
    Linux 2.6.10; glibc-2.3.5; vendor neutral home-brewed installation

    ----anything after this line is ANNOYING CRAP that the newsserver adds-----
    ---directly contact newsfeeds and ISPs that piggy back them to complain----


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

+ Reply to Thread