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
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?

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.

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.

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.

Now that is just FUD. Optimizations do not necessarily equal instabilities.

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.

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.

*snicker*

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.