Skip to main content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Post

glibc 2.4 compile error and your LFS philosophy

2 replies [Last post]
Offline
Joined: 2006-03-28

Hey folks.

Currently I'm constructing myself an LFS and am at the point where I have to build glibc within the chrooted environment.
I used all the latest software to build the build environment, including gcc 4.1 and glibc 2.4. Everything worked fine so far, and I only had to apply the perl-patch which is mentioned in the book (LFS 6.1.1).
So now I'm in the chrooted environment, have /dev populated and everything and am supposed to compile glibc. So I take 2.4, follow the configure-options mentioned in the book and start building. Problem now is, that nscd seems to depend on linuxthreads, which doesn't exist anymore in glibc 2.4.
I also compiled glibc 2.3.6, the latest 2.3-version and that works, since there's still linuxthreads for that.
I'd prefer using a complete nptl-version, but somehow it seems that stupid nscd really wants to have these linuxthreads.
Is there some patch for that? Do I really need nscd?

I could live with using glibc 2.3.6, but would absolutely prefer using 2.4.

Since I'm already here I also wanted to ask how you go for building your LFS? Do you totally stick to the book, taking exactly the versions and patches given there or do you use the latest software and skip most of the patches.
As I said I skipped most patches, except for the perl-patch which was really necessary to compile it and I use the latest software, as far as it's possible.

libervisco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-04
I know this is a pretty old

I know this is a pretty old thread now, but while I don't know if nscd is needed or not I know about a guy who could help you with this and give you a nice advice on how to go about building LFS (that is, if you should stick to the book or not).

He is valan on these forums. I hope he replies.

Anyway, from what I remember him saying (he actually runs LFS for a long time now) first time is probably best to stick with the book, but after you've done it a few times and are already quite comfortable with it, you can experiment a bit more and not follow the book sentence per sentence.

Offline
Joined: 2006-03-28
Hi libervisco, thanks for

Hi libervisco,

thanks for your reply.
I think it doesn't matter that this thread is old.