headers
Ulrich Drepper | 3 Oct 2002 12:09
Picon
Favicon

glibc 2.3


Release 2.3 of the GNU C library is now available at

	ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/glibc/releases

and (hopefully soon)

	ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/glibc

and all the mirror sites around the globe.

The new files are

	glibc-2.3.tar.bz2
	glibc-linuxthreads-2.3.tar.bz2
	glibc-2.2.5-2.3.diff.bz2

and for those following the test releases

	glibc-2.2.94-2.3.diff.bz2

This release introduces a number of new features but not too many.
glibc 2.2 was already mostly complete.  Instead this release focuses
on making functionality compliant with standards and on performance
optimizations.  The user visible changes include:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Version 2.3

* Masahide Washizawa contributed iconv modules for IBM1163 and IBM1164
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mike Black | 3 Oct 2002 18:11

Re: glibc 2.3

OK...now I'm confused:
configure says:
*** On GNU/Linux systems the GNU C Library should not be installed into
*** /usr/local since this might make your system totally unusable.
*** We strongly advise to use a different prefix.  For details read the FAQ.
*** If you really mean to do this, run configure again using the extra
*** parameter `--disable-sanity-checks'.
And the FAQ says the opposite:
{ZW} If you wish to be cautious, do not configure with --prefix=/usr.  If
you don't specify a prefix, glibc will be installed in /usr/local, where it
will probably not break anything.  (If you wish to be certain, set the
prefix to something like /usr/local/glibc2 which is not used for anything.)

It appears configure is using prefix /usr/local and spits out a bogus message.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper <at> redhat.com>
To: <libc-alpha <at> sources.redhat.com>; <linux-gcc <at> vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:09 AM
Subject: glibc 2.3

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Release 2.3 of the GNU C library is now available at
> 
> ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/glibc/releases
> 
> and (hopefully soon)
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ulrich Drepper | 3 Oct 2002 18:22
Picon
Favicon

Re: glibc 2.3


Mike Black wrote:

> It appears configure is using prefix /usr/local and spits out a bogus message.

THere is no bogus messages.  Installing in /usr/local does not overwrite
the system's libc and is safe from this perspective.  But gcc handles
/usr/local special which might lead to normal compilations picking the
headers up which might or might not lead to problems.  And /usr/local is
the default prefix because this is what it always is.

--

-- 
--------------.                        ,-.            444 Castro Street
Ulrich Drepper \    ,-----------------'   \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
Red Hat         `--' drepper at redhat.com `---------------------------
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mike Black | 3 Oct 2002 18:26

Re: glibc 2.3

But configure says NOT to install in /usr/local
FAQ says TO install in /usr/local
Which is it?  Or am I supposed to pick something other than /usr/ or /usr/local now?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper <at> redhat.com>
To: "Mike Black" <mblack <at> csi-inc.com>
Cc: <libc-alpha <at> sources.redhat.com>; <linux-gcc <at> vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: glibc 2.3

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Mike Black wrote:
> 
> > It appears configure is using prefix /usr/local and spits out a bogus message.
> 
> THere is no bogus messages.  Installing in /usr/local does not overwrite
> the system's libc and is safe from this perspective.  But gcc handles
> /usr/local special which might lead to normal compilations picking the
> headers up which might or might not lead to problems.  And /usr/local is
> the default prefix because this is what it always is.
> 
> - -- 
> - --------------.                        ,-.            444 Castro Street
> Ulrich Drepper \    ,-----------------'   \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
> Red Hat         `--' drepper at redhat.com `---------------------------
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ulrich Drepper | 3 Oct 2002 18:33
Picon
Favicon

Re: glibc 2.3


Mike Black wrote:
> But configure says NOT to install in /usr/local
> FAQ says TO install in /usr/local
> Which is it?  Or am I supposed to pick something other than /usr/ or /usr/local now?

It depends on what you want.  Using a prefix other than /usr and
/usr/local avoids both problems.

--

-- 
--------------.                        ,-.            444 Castro Street
Ulrich Drepper \    ,-----------------'   \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
Red Hat         `--' drepper at redhat.com `---------------------------
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Graham Murray | 5 Oct 2002 21:35
Picon

Re: glibc 2.3

Ulrich Drepper <drepper <at> redhat.com> writes:

> The 2.3.x release should be binary compatible with the 2.2 and earlier
> releases.  All correct programs should continue to run. 

I have encountered what looks like a binary incompatibility since
upgrading from 2.2.5.

I received the error message "relocation error: symbol
__libc_stack_end, version GLIBC_2.1 not defined in file ld-linux.so.2
with link time reference". This was on a program built from source
using the same gcc3.2 and glibc 2.2.5 (SuSE). Recompiling while
running glibc 2.3
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jakub Jelinek | 5 Oct 2002 21:39
Picon
Favicon

Re: glibc 2.3

On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 08:35:57PM +0100, Graham Murray wrote:
> Ulrich Drepper <drepper <at> redhat.com> writes:
> 
> 
> > The 2.3.x release should be binary compatible with the 2.2 and earlier
> > releases.  All correct programs should continue to run. 
> 
> I have encountered what looks like a binary incompatibility since
> upgrading from 2.2.5.
> 
> I received the error message "relocation error: symbol
> __libc_stack_end, version GLIBC_2.1 not defined in file ld-linux.so.2
> with link time reference". This was on a program built from source
> using the same gcc3.2 and glibc 2.2.5 (SuSE). Recompiling while
> running glibc 2.3 

__libc_stack_end is part of glibc private interface, libraries other
then the ones contained in glibc or programs must not use it.
The private interfaces has been moved to GLIBC_PRIVATE symbol version
to catch broken programs/libraries and also to document what is and what
is not considered to be private interface in a clear way.

	Jakub
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ulrich Drepper | 11 Oct 2002 08:40
Picon
Favicon

glibc 2.3.1


I've uploaded

  glibc-2.3.1.tar.bz2
  glibc-2.3-2.3.1.diff.bz2
  glibc-2.3.1pre2-2.3.1.diff.bz2
  glibc-linuxthreads-2.3.1.tar.bz2

to

  ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/glibc/releases/

The files will soon also be available at

  ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/glibc/

and the mirrors worldwide.

This releases is mainly meant to introduce some changes which work
around problems some programs have which use very small stack sizes and
still expect all libc functions to be usable.  Beside this change only
very few, mostly non-code, changes are included.  Every user of glibc
2.3 should upgrade.

As usual, compiling glibc is nothing for the faint hearted.  It is
complicated and demanding and can potentially ruin your entire
installation.  Better wait for your distribution maker to provide you
with binaries.  People  who nevertheless compile glibc on their own have
to read the documentation, FAQ, and the announcement for the 2.3 release:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Keld Jørn Simonsen | 15 Oct 2002 17:57
Picon

Re: glibc 2.3

On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 03:09:57AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> 
> * Contents of the LC_* and LANG environment variables in the CEN style are
>   not recognized anymore.   It never was used.  Change by Ulrich Drepper.

Yes, I can understand it has not really been used. But it is not just
CEN ENV 12005 that has these naming rules, they are also in the ISO Cultural
Registry standard ISO/IEC 15897 (which is a fasttrack of the CEN
prestandard). And it is one of the things that my Unicode collegueges
are asking for in the revision of the ISO 15897 standard, so there must
be something good in it.  Would it be possible to roll this in again?

Best regards
keld
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ulrich Drepper | 15 Oct 2002 19:41
Picon
Favicon

Re: glibc 2.3


Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:

>  Would it be possible to roll this in again?

No.  That stuff is gone.  *Nobody* ever showed any interest in this.
Ever.  And we have already problems enough with the current format.

--

-- 
--------------.                        ,-.            444 Castro Street
Ulrich Drepper \    ,-----------------'   \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
Red Hat         `--' drepper at redhat.com `---------------------------
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane