Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

baslinux - Re: [BL] Upgrading BL3

baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Baslinux mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: sindi keesan <keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org>
  • To: baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [BL] Upgrading BL3
  • Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 14:31:53 +0000 (UTC)

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 3aoo-cvfd AT dea.spamcon.org wrote:

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).

It worked for me to install just a few files (ld-linux, libc and libm, I think) in order to use Opera 7. Plus some X libraries.


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.

But what about the SW10.2 glibc?
The main difference in size appears to be ld-linux, not libc itself.

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).
What did they do in 2.3.2 to make it so large?


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.

It is not all that simple to downgrade a library. I think I would need to boot with some other linux, delete everything 2.3.2, run ldlinux - is that right? And first download the 2.3.2 so libs for 30 minutes.

I can't really lose by doing another upgrade to the SW10.2 glibc first and trying abiword with that. (First we may upgrade the power supply so it will boot more than once a day).


Cheers,
Steven




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page