LinuxQuestions.org
Go Job Hunting at the LQ Job Marketplace
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 09-13-2006, 01:52 AM   #1
Zmyrgel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Finland
Distribution: Slackware, CentOS, RHEL, OpenBSD
Posts: 1,006

Rep: Reputation: 36
Upgrade glibc


Hi,

Just finished installing gcc-4.1.1 and I was planning to install the newer glibc-2.4 also. Problem is that I've no idea how to do it properly. As it is a corner block of linux I don't want to mess around with it.

I downloaded the glibc-2.4 source from their webpage so my question is, do I need the other source packages and how to compile them?

Does the the process just go like
Code:
./configure --prefix=/usr
make
make install
make clean
or do I need to add the others and how?

Will by currently installed packages break or any other problems which I should be aware of.
Should I compile some programs after I've upgraded the glibc or how should I proceed with this?

Last edited by Zmyrgel; 09-13-2006 at 02:47 AM.
 
Old 09-13-2006, 03:17 AM   #2
piete
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Havant, Hampshire, UK
Distribution: Slamd64, Slackware, PS2Linux
Posts: 465

Rep: Reputation: 44
For a long response, I suggest reading around the forums (run a search on glibc upgrading here at LQ), but for a short response:

Take a look at Pat's slackbuild script for glibc and make a package out of it, then upgradepkg it.

For best effect you'll have to recompile Slackware to make the most of out your new glibc, and in some cases programs will not work when you effectively whip the tablecloth out from under them.

./configure --prefix=/usr is not enough for a working glibc, again, check the slackbuild for reasonable options.

I won't pretend I understand your motivation for doing this, but DIY-Linux, LFS and ROCK are all projects that can help you understand the pitfalls of doing things by hand.

- Piete.
 
Old 09-13-2006, 03:33 AM   #3
Zmyrgel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Finland
Distribution: Slackware, CentOS, RHEL, OpenBSD
Posts: 1,006

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 36
Ok, I checked few topics. Few were slackware specific but provided some information. Linuxfromscracth.org had nice info, I think I'll try to make my own LFS at some point... I got nice USB-memory for it

Yeah, I'll check the slackbuild... hmm... I check if I just recompile the slackware original glibc with some system specific optimizations. I think this would be a safer and a better solution. But I'll check the script and let you know how this will turn out.

Been using Gentoo too much Need to compile... Seriously I want to have optimized system but stability of slack. I probably stick with the slackware packages which I will recompile to be more suited for my laptop.

Last edited by Zmyrgel; 09-13-2006 at 05:00 AM.
 
Old 09-13-2006, 05:53 AM   #4
liquidtenmilion
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: South Carolina
Distribution: Slackware 11.0
Posts: 606

Rep: Reputation: 31
Programs are just programs, and the same program is equally stable accross all distros. It's when you start optimizing things that they start to get unstable.

Slackware rebuilt with optimizations is no longer slackware, it's your own custom distro, and it will have unstabilities due to the optimizations.
 
Old 09-13-2006, 05:58 AM   #5
evilDagmar
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Right behind you.
Distribution: NBG, then randomed.
Posts: 480

Rep: Reputation: 31
Now that is just FUD. Optimizations do not necessarily equal instabilities.
 
Old 09-13-2006, 06:38 AM   #6
Zmyrgel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Finland
Distribution: Slackware, CentOS, RHEL, OpenBSD
Posts: 1,006

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 36
Well, basicly if I just install like codecs for xine it's no longer slackware?

Optimization is nice and to do that I get a bit more wiser in the workings of linux. Mainly I would like to for example have support for threads in glibc as dual-core processor will propably like'em.

I know that optimizations make my laptop run smoother and more efficiently. I just have to be carefull what to add as wrong optimizations, for example wrong processor support (sse, sse2,sse3) will make the system unstable. But to say all optimizations make system more unstable is just a load of ... something left to microsoft vista feature list.
 
Old 09-13-2006, 06:47 AM   #7
evilDagmar
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Right behind you.
Distribution: NBG, then randomed.
Posts: 480

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zmyrgel
Well, basicly if I just install like codecs for xine it's no longer slackware?

Optimization is nice and to do that I get a bit more wiser in the workings of linux. Mainly I would like to for example have support for threads in glibc as dual-core processor will propably like'em.
Okay, perhaps more research is what you need then. glibc in Slackware has had threads support for a long while now. So long I can't even remember when it was added. It was definitely more than 6 years ago. Definitely don't go screwing around with glibc until you're well-versed in building it and running it's test harnesses. Since literally everything on your system links to it, a screwed up glibc is a fast way to just turn the filesystem into an unrecoverable pile of binary sparks and fizzles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zmyrgel
I know that optimizations make my laptop run smoother and more efficiently. I just have to be carefull what to add as wrong optimizations, for example wrong processor support (sse, sse2,sse3) will make the system unstable. But to say all optimizations make system more unstable is just a load of ... something left to microsoft vista feature list.
*snicker*
 
Old 09-13-2006, 07:25 AM   #8
Zmyrgel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Finland
Distribution: Slackware, CentOS, RHEL, OpenBSD
Posts: 1,006

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilDagmar
Okay, perhaps more research is what you need then. glibc in Slackware has had threads support for a long while now. So long I can't even remember when it was added. It was definitely more than 6 years ago. Definitely don't go screwing around with glibc until you're well-versed in building it and running it's test harnesses. Since literally everything on your system links to it, a screwed up glibc is a fast way to just turn the filesystem into an unrecoverable pile of binary sparks and fizzles.
I just threw the threads there. I recall some nptl threads or something which could be enabled there.

All and all I think it would be better if I even compile the glibc with the gcc-4.1.1 I'm running now. I haven't yet delved on what needs / should be enabled with the glibc as I've used Gentoo which had it's nice portage USE flags to do this for me. Slackware doesn't have those so I indeed need some research on how to do this in slackware.

Last edited by Zmyrgel; 09-13-2006 at 10:39 AM.
 
Old 09-13-2006, 10:42 AM   #9
Zmyrgel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Finland
Distribution: Slackware, CentOS, RHEL, OpenBSD
Posts: 1,006

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 36
Heh, just compiled the glibc-2.3.6 with gcc. Few problems as I didn't have the CC setting in PATH but quick googling and "export CC=gcc" fixed it. Also, noticed a typo in the glibc.SlackBuild but it was easy to fix (notified Pat about it). After building the packages I learned another thing... you shouldn't remove the glibc packages and then reinstall them... might cause few difficulties

Shall see if I try to upgrade to the 2.4 at some point.
 
Old 09-13-2006, 10:47 AM   #10
folkenfanel
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: formerly Fanelia and Zaibach
Distribution: Slackware-current with KDE 4.8.5
Posts: 303

Rep: Reputation: 36
Wink Hi there

Hi

I have been compiling my own Slackware for some time. I compile my own gcc and glibc, which is optimized for i686 and for 2.6 kernels (NTPL but NOT linuxthreads).

Some stuff does give me trouble. Some stuff will not work out of the box. (Mercury for example refuses to run unless you modify it to run for a 2.6 kernel glibc -NPTL-: it assumes 2.2 kernels with a glibc with linuxthreads support).

In the end I like doing it for fun. Since the first 4 times I built it, I haven't had any troubles. I advice using a SlackBuild, however. It also should be built carefully and in a system with the bare minimum (LinuxFromScratch has a good tutorial about that).

May the Source be with you all!
 
Old 09-13-2006, 02:22 PM   #11
liquidtenmilion
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: South Carolina
Distribution: Slackware 11.0
Posts: 606

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilDagmar
Now that is just FUD. Optimizations do not necessarily equal instabilities.
Hold on there, I think you misread my post.

What I meant was, what makes a distro, say, Gentoo, less stable than slackware. Technically, slackware IS NO more stable than gentoo, because programs are just programs, and they technically should run the same no matter which distro.

Gentoo's _reputation_ of instability comes from people who use experimental programs, development libraries, or insane optimizations.

I didn't mean that optimizations in general cause instability, what I meant was that Slackware's "stability" has to actually come from SOMETHING(any perceived stability certainly can't come from the fact that Pat built it alone), and when you go ahead and rebuild all of your packages, then you are automatically losing whatever that something was.(Not that i'm saying it exists).

It's confusing, but it makes sense when you think about it.

Quote:
Been using Gentoo too much Need to compile... Seriously I want to have optimized system but stability of slack. I probably stick with the slackware packages which I will recompile to be more suited for my laptop.
I was originally referring to that quote right there. Slackware and gentoo and debian and ubuntu are all equally stable, if they use the same programs/versions that is, because software is just software, and it doesn't run in a special "slackware" mode or anything when you are running slackware.

You can't have "slackware stability" if you are not using base slackware packages. Then you just have "Slackware stability plus the added/removed stability of using a newer and optimized version of glibc/gcc/etc", which will have the EXACT same stability as "gentoo stability using the newer and optimized versions of glibc/gcc/etc"

So what i'm trying to get at is, if you want to recompile your system for various optimizations or different options/use flags, then use gentoo, because it will be easier and more efficient than slackware, and it will provide the same results.
 
Old 09-14-2006, 12:30 AM   #12
Zmyrgel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Finland
Distribution: Slackware, CentOS, RHEL, OpenBSD
Posts: 1,006

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidtenmilion

I was originally referring to that quote right there. Slackware and gentoo and debian and ubuntu are all equally stable, if they use the same programs/versions that is, because software is just software, and it doesn't run in a special "slackware" mode or anything when you are running slackware.

You can't have "slackware stability" if you are not using base slackware packages. Then you just have "Slackware stability plus the added/removed stability of using a newer and optimized version of glibc/gcc/etc", which will have the EXACT same stability as "gentoo stability using the newer and optimized versions of glibc/gcc/etc"

So what i'm trying to get at is, if you want to recompile your system for various optimizations or different options/use flags, then use gentoo, because it will be easier and more efficient than slackware, and it will provide the same results.
I meant by the slackware stability a set of packages perceived as "stable". I'm not planning on using any extreme optimizations like in I commonly use in Gentoo. The slackware stability is the properly made packages with added security patches in them. These are usually also pretty bug free. I just like to tinker with system and it could use a recompile of whole system with the new gcc as programs tend to run smoother when compiled with it... though the new gcc won't compile all the software yet as it's more picky on the code.

I also like that I can reinstall slackware in 20min if I make a very bad mistake compared to Gentoos several hours of recompiling. Also I like Slackware better
 
Old 09-15-2006, 10:11 AM   #13
jong357
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Distribution: DIYSlackware
Posts: 1,914

Rep: Reputation: 52
If there is only one package that you optimize out of thousands, glibc should be it, without a doubt. Drepper and the other maintainers of glibc recommend it in fact. I wouldn't get all crazy but there is nothing wrong with:

-march=i686 -mtune=i686 -O3 -pipe

That won't affect "stability" in the slightest. In fact, the end result will have benefits over a non-optimized glibc with no adverse effects.
 
Old 09-17-2006, 04:21 AM   #14
evilDagmar
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Right behind you.
Distribution: NBG, then randomed.
Posts: 480

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zmyrgel
Heh, just compiled the glibc-2.3.6 with gcc. Few problems as I didn't have the CC setting in PATH but quick googling and "export CC=gcc" fixed it. Also, noticed a typo in the glibc.SlackBuild but it was easy to fix (notified Pat about it). After building the packages I learned another thing... you shouldn't remove the glibc packages and then reinstall them... might cause few difficulties

Shall see if I try to upgrade to the 2.4 at some point.
I learned the hard way (several times) to have a static copy of bash ready when screwing around with glibc. It's much easier to undo mistakes when you have a bash that can't be broken.
 
Old 09-17-2006, 04:32 AM   #15
evilDagmar
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Right behind you.
Distribution: NBG, then randomed.
Posts: 480

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidtenmilion
Hold on there, I think you misread my post.
I don't think I misread anything. What you said was very simple, and it was "Slackware rebuilt with optimizations is no longer slackware, it's your own custom distro, and it will have unstabilities due to the optimizations."

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidtenmilion
What I meant was, what makes a distro, say, Gentoo, less stable than slackware. Technically, slackware IS NO more stable than gentoo, because programs are just programs, and they technically should run the same no matter which distro.

Gentoo's _reputation_ of instability comes from people who use experimental programs, development libraries, or insane optimizations.
Well, I don't intend to argue with that. Gentoo users drive me up a wall in the worst way rather more often than not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidtenmilion
I didn't mean that optimizations in general cause instability, what I meant was that Slackware's "stability" has to actually come from SOMETHING(any perceived stability certainly can't come from the fact that Pat built it alone), and when you go ahead and rebuild all of your packages, then you are automatically losing whatever that something was.(Not that i'm saying it exists).

It's confusing, but it makes sense when you think about it.
No, it doesn't. Again you're saying that if Pat didn't build it, then it's less stable, even though you're also saying that the stability isn't a factor intrinsic to Pat having built the originals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidtenmillion
I was originally referring to that quote right there. Slackware and gentoo and debian and ubuntu are all equally stable, if they use the same programs/versions that is, because software is just software, and it doesn't run in a special "slackware" mode or anything when you are running slackware.

You can't have "slackware stability" if you are not using base slackware packages. Then you just have "Slackware stability plus the added/removed stability of using a newer and optimized version of glibc/gcc/etc", which will have the EXACT same stability as "gentoo stability using the newer and optimized versions of glibc/gcc/etc"

So what i'm trying to get at is, if you want to recompile your system for various optimizations or different options/use flags, then use gentoo, because it will be easier and more efficient than slackware, and it will provide the same results.
This ignores the time spent figuring out the maddeningly complex system of USE flags, as well as the time spent deciphering how each individual package employs them. Someone used to dealing with Slackware would probably find it more useful to use the SlackBuild scripts over Gentoo because it's easier to enact the minimum necessary changes.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
newb question on GNU glibc-2.3.1 upgrade to GNU glibc-2.3.2 clindy528 Slackware 1 11-10-2005 06:49 AM
upgrade glibc pagla_ghoda Linux - Software 9 09-14-2005 02:06 PM
GLIBC Upgrade steveoelliott Slackware 10 06-22-2005 01:32 AM
glibc upgrade natram Linux - Software 1 10-01-2004 02:42 PM
upgrade glibc-2.2.4 to glibc-2.3.2 on redhat 7.2 Shuja Red Hat 0 07-28-2004 06:10 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration