Re: Building glibc 2.0.7 using hamm
On Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 07:49:27PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> I now have the latest 2.0.7 pre-release version of glibc building packages
> successfully. However, because several programs were necessary that are
> not available in the distribution, glibc is currently, technically, a
> non-free package (because the ability to rebuild the source depends on
> packages outside of main).
I thought that made it 'contrib'. At least, that's where ddd-[sd]motif
ended up.
> The two packages are cvs and tetex (actually it's makeinfo, but this
> program is only found in the tetex packages).
Neither of these should actually be needed to build the library itself --
you might have to cheat a little in a Makefile or two, but given the LGPL
that's easy and perfectly okay.
> CVS is currently released in Debian as version 1.9.10, while the version
> that I used to retrieve and build glibc was 1.9.26.
Now, I'm not The Amazing CVS Expert, but I do know that any version of CVS
greater than 1.9 is an "interim release" which I think www.cyclic.com
describes as "only slightly tested." Since the hamm freeze is in place and
CVS 1.9.26 adds significant new features since 1.9.10 -- AND 1.9.10 works
pretty well -- I personally don't think it's a good idea to change CVS
versions at this point. Even using 1.9.10 makes me a little queasy, but I'm
not the maintainer and it's been there a long time and it seems to work so I
don't complain :)
On that note, why are we using a prerelease of libc6? If it currently
requires an unreleased version of CVS just to build (which is weird!) then
it sounds like it has still has quite a few rough edges, and it worries me
to base a distribution on it.
Just out of curiosity, what on earth does libc6 _do_ during its build
sequence that requires such a new CVS? When your C library requires a
version control system just to compile, the chicken-and-egg problems start
to get really confusing :)
If you need the newest CVS only to pull glibc out of their repository, I
don't think that really causes a problem. The rest of us can just download
your source archive.
Have fun,
Avery
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: