Branches
Releases
|
Version
|
Focus
|
Date
|
|
2.7
|
Major feature enhancements |
19-Oct-2007 09:40 |
|
2.3.6
|
Minor bugfixes |
06-Nov-2005 06:33 |
|
2.3.5
|
Minor bugfixes |
20-Apr-2005 15:06 |
|
2.3.4
|
N/A |
17-Mar-2005 19:24 |
|
2.3.3
|
Minor bugfixes |
20-Nov-2004 09:35 |
|
2.3.2
|
Major feature enhancements |
15-Mar-2003 09:07 |
|
2.3.1
|
Major bugfixes |
14-Oct-2002 14:01 |
|
2.3
|
Major feature enhancements |
04-Oct-2002 17:29 |
|
2.2.5
|
Major bugfixes |
21-Jan-2002 19:35 |
|
2.2.4
|
Minor bugfixes |
28-Aug-2001 15:28 |
Articles referencing this project
- Red Hat: Updated glibc packages address several bugs
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Wed, May 18th 2005 09:08
- Debian: New libc6 packages fix insecure temporary files
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Wed, Jan 12th 2005 06:47
- Red Hat: Updated glibc packages fix flaws
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Wed, Aug 4th 2004 22:48
- Red Hat: Updated glibc packages provide security and bug fixes
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Wed, Nov 12th 2003 21:37
- SuSE: New glibc packages fix remote system compromise
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Tue, May 27th 2003 09:45
|
|
Comments
[»]
Compiling GLIBC 2.3.2 with GCC 3.3
by Jerome St-Louis - Jul 6th 2003 22:11:01
I've been searching the web and IRC for help with this without any luck...
For some reason no one else seems to have this problem. I believe all the
packages on this system are the latest and greatest and generally proved to
work well so far compiling each other one of them.
First I got the sscanf issues which was using the old protoypes for
variable arguments ... I changed the prototype to include the
"..." at the end of the argument list and the compilation got
further. But now I keep getting undefined errors on stuff like 'strcmp',
'errno', '__libc_open', '__libc_missing_32bit_uids', 'memcpy', etc. The
undefined references are from '<build dir>/elf/librtld.os, with a
line apparently trying to build "ld.so". Anybody could bring some
light to this really annoying problem? I have a built version of this very
same version of GLIBC built on my other system, but built with GCC 3.2.2.
Unfortunately I upgraded it to GCC 3.3 as well and don't wanna go through
the hassle of downgrading the compiler. Thanks for any help.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Compiling GLIBC 2.3.2 with GCC 3.3
by Jerome St-Louis - Jul 7th 2003 06:15:48
Ok as it turns out, I successfully built GLIBC 2.3.2 with GCC 3.3 on my
other system.
I'm using binutils-2.13.2.1 on the system where it does not compile, and
binutils-2.13.1 on the one where it does. I tried replacing simply ld with
2.13.1, but without any success... What else could cause this?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
GLIBC 2.3.2 Compiling Weirdness
by Jerome St-Louis - Jul 9th 2003 10:13:59
Ok. after 3-4 days of trying to figure out what is going on, I finally
brought it down to this:
GLIBC 2.3.2 will not build from a build directory that looks like this:
/build
But it will build without any problem in /setup/build
Anybody has a clue why? This one gets the weirdest compilation problem
award...
GLIBC 2.3.1 does not have this problem.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Compilation problems
by driz - Mar 18th 2003 22:35:32
When it first came out, I tried to use it for my LFS system I was working
on, I've actually had alot of problems with it. I disabled sanity checking
because it thought my cpp was broken, then it just dies towards the end of
compilation with errors, when i went back to 2.3.1 everything worked fine.
All the packages required were installed with the latest updates, and the
latest 2.5.x kernel.. strange that it works with 2.3.1 and not 2.3.2. I
hope this is fixed soon.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Compilation problems
by MSilveira - Apr 10th 2003 22:32:50
The same with my system. I have s slack 9.0 box with an rpm mod to go
above tgz, rpm segfaults. Evem when using glibc-2.3.1 to compile
glibc-2.3.2, I get some iconv internal error(s). Weird.
Will wait until 2.3.3 is out.
--
Helloooo Worrrrld! :D
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Interesting release announcement
by brad-x - Mar 15th 2003 10:22:17
The GNU C Library for the HURD, and on yeah, that Linux thing?
Am I reading subtle hostility here or is it just me?
You'd figure that open projects wouldn't subtly embattle each other this
way, in a logical world. One wouldn't assume it makes any sense for
propaganda by means of subtlety to work its way into something this
major.
You learn something new every day.
--
// -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- //
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Upgrading from 2.1.3 to 2.3?
by Anonymous Coward - Oct 13th 2002 09:38:10
Anyone got any links on upgrading from glibc 2.1.3 to 2.3? I want to
upgrade my Red Hat Linux 6.2 system to 2.3 as the 2.1.3 it comes with is
very old.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Upgrading from 2.1.3 to 2.3?
by will - Oct 15th 2003 05:46:25
> Anyone got any links on upgrading from
> glibc 2.1.3 to 2.3? I want to upgrade my
> Red Hat Linux 6.2 system to 2.3 as the
> 2.1.3 it comes with is very old.
it's year late, but i just upgraded my hat 6.2 to glibc
2.3.2. i had to upgrade binutils to the most recent,
and had gcc 3.2.2. it went smoothly. the only
software i've found that quit working was a pre-
2000 version of wine that i need, and i've been
getting compilation errors about undefined reference
to 'errno.h'. thats all i know so far.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Check Failing Part 2
by ValMan - May 22nd 2000 14:32:48
Glibc 2.1.3 compiles fine but when i do a 'make check' it exits with an
error at the stdlib test. I don't know if I should continue with the
installation. On one case, I skipped the test the went right with the
installation and it said it couldn't find the file libc.so.6. I checked
the FAQs but couldn't seem to find any light on this matter. Any thing i
stupidly missed?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Check Failing Part 2
by Eli Sand - Aug 28th 2001 13:31:22
> Glibc 2.1.3 compiles fine but when i do
> a 'make check' it exits with an error at
> the stdlib test. I don't know if I
> should continue with the installation.
> On one case, I skipped the test the went
> right with the installation and it said
> it couldn't find the file libc.so.6. I
> checked the FAQs but couldn't seem to
> find any light on this matter. Any
> thing i stupidly missed?
Not sure what to do exactly for your problem, but here's what I had to do
when going from 2.1.3 to 2.2.3 to get around some make check/install
problems...
Problem 1) make check failed testing my passwd/group files. Apparently
you MUST have finger info (user:id:gid:...:i have no legs:... <- the 'i
have no legs' stuff) for all users.
Problem 2) make check failed on glob test. Must have at least bash 2.0.5
to fix that.
Problem 3) make install failed half way during install with 'make'
erroring out because it couldn't find ld-linux.so.6 or whatever. Seems
make install forgot to run ldconfig at one point (so run ldconfig to fix
that).
Problem 4) make install bombs out during the FINAL perl check on your libs
to check for unresolved internal links. Seems like lib-compat has 2
unresolved links in it. Either ignore this error, as stuff works ok, or
edit the perl check script to ignore lib-compat along with a couple other
libs it knows about.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
What happened to Locale - GLIBC-2.1.3
by Codesurfer - Mar 24th 2000 23:03:47
I have just built and installed Glibc-2.1.3, and it went without a hitch.
But now I am informed that my C library does not support Locales any more,
what happened to them?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Outside US
by Black Snow - Jun 12th 1999 06:55:41
i got glibc-2.1.1 and the glibc-linuxthreads-2.1.tar.gz
from the ftp.gnu.org, but unable to get the crypt
would somebody put it on ftp.funet.fi
[reply]
[top]
[»]
glibc-2.1.0 removed
by Erik Landry - Feb 12th 1999 22:11:55
glibc-2.1.0 seems to have been removed from ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/glibc/
(see URL: ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/glibc/glibc-2.1-README)
It also still seems to be available from URL: ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/gnu/funet/
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Check Failing
by SandyMacJr - Feb 10th 1999 00:58:11
I've had no trouble installing all the nessary versions of everything
(egcs, binutils, etc) and the compliled and installed fine. Glibc 2.1
complies fine but when I "make check" it stopes at the glob test in the
postix directory. Any know what would cause this?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Check Failing
by Eli Sand - Aug 28th 2001 13:24:22
> I've had no trouble installing all the
> nessary versions of everything (egcs,
> binutils, etc) and the compliled and
> installed fine. Glibc 2.1 complies fine
> but when I "make check" it stopes at the
> glob test in the postix directory. Any
> know what would cause this?
Yes, you probably have an earlier version of bash (pre 2.0.5? I think is
the latest version). If you upgrade to the latest bash, globbing is fixed.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Check Failing
by ovis - Mar 29th 2004 07:33:05
>
> % I've had no trouble installing all
> the
> % nessary versions of everything (egcs,
> % binutils, etc) and the compliled and
> % installed fine. Glibc 2.1 complies
> fine
> % but when I "make check" it stopes at
> the
> % glob test in the postix directory.
> Any
> % know what would cause this?
>
>
> Yes, you probably have an earlier
> version of bash (pre 2.0.5? I think is
> the latest version). If you upgrade to
> the latest bash, globbing is fixed.
Mhh i used the latest bash while compiling glibc-2.3.3-20031202 and have
the same trouble
ovis
[reply]
[top]
|
