Baslinux mailing list

[3aoo-cvfd AT dea.spamcon.org]

sindi keesan wrote:
>
> I bit the bullet and have the SW9.1 glibc 2.3.1 

The glibc package from Slackware 9.1 is 2.3.2.
I am not recommending that package.

> > It is OK to cherry-pick the xbin from Slackware 4.0.
> > However, I do not recommend this for an xbin in a
> > more recent Slackware.
> 
> I did it for BL2.1 (Slackware 7.1) and it worked with Xvesa.

BL2 has a glibc2 foundation -- upgrading to a newer glibc2
is not a big step.  However, BL3 has a libc5 foundation -- 
upgrading to glibc2 has several fishhooks (which are avoided
by installing the full runtime package).  

> > libc-2.3.1.so   1262496
> 
> You are right, libc-2.2.5.so is 1237848, about 25K smaller.
> I installed SW9.1 libc-2.3.2.so which is 1458907 

Clearly there are significant differences between 2.3.2
and 2.3.1.  I am confident that 2.3.1 works.  I have no 
such confidence in 2.3.2.  Besides, it's 200kb bigger.  

I am also confident that glibc 2.3.1 is significantly
better than 2.2.5.

> All the libc .so files from SW91 with 2.3.2 in their names 
> total using wc total about 2.8MB.  The ones with 2.2.5 total 
> 1.87MB.  So it does come to an extra MB 

Yes, glibc 2.2.5 is smaller than 2.3.2.  But I am not 
recommending 2.3.2.

> The new ld-2.3.2.so is about 700K and the old one 83K, 

ld-2.3.1.so is 85252 (about the same size as the old one).

> Is it possible to compile a smaller ld file 

No need.  Simply use glibc 2.3.1 and you will have a 
small ld file.

Cheers,
Steven

____________________________
http://www.basiclinux.com.ru