GNU/Libc 2.3.1 on HP-PARISC requires >= 2.4.19 kernel.

debian, parisc, debian-glibc,

Hi, my name is Carlos, and I cause all your nightmares with glibc on HPPA :)

Currently in unstable for HPPA - glibc 2.3.1-5
Currently in testing for HPPA - glibc 2.2.5-15

What?
=====
During the changeover from GNU/Libc 2.2.x to 2.3.x HPPA has changed it's minimum GNU/Libc kernel version to 2.4.19.

Why?
====
- More testing.
- Bugs fixed in unaligned handlers.
- Trap handler fixes.
- More things than you can shake a stick at, and all thanks to the wonderful kernel hacking team that parisc-linux has.

No.
===
If you do not wish to upgrade your kernel then I suggest you pin glibc at the particular version that you feel is good for you. The debian glibc package for 2.3.1-6 has a preinst check against the system kernel version (e.g. You can't install it without the right kernel).

Sorry.
======
I apologize for the initial oversight that meant there was no preinst check, and one or two individuals have suffered through some serious system reconstruction. I apologize. I really do. I owe you both beers :}

I recommend that you _do_ _not_ upgrade glibc on HPPA until 2.3.1-6.

When?
=====

glibc 2.3.1-6 is going into unstable in the next few days (time permitting).

Thanks for your time :)

Cheers,
Carlos O'Donell.

I feel this was a mistake.

That's great, but there are still problems with 2.4.19 and 2.4.20. I think you're doing our users a disservice by requiring them to upgrade to 2.4.19. Why not relax the minimum version requirement down to 2.4.17?

"It's not Hollywood.  War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death.  I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies.
Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk

I feel this was a mistake.

That's great, but there are still problems with 2.4.19 and 2.4.20. I think you're doing our users a disservice by requiring them to upgrade to 2.4.19. Why not relax the minimum version requirement down to 2.4.17?

"It's not Hollywood.  War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death.  I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies.
Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk

I agree that it was probably a mistake at the time since 2.4.19 seemed to solve a lot of problems... though in hindsight they are still too unstable to push forward on all of our users.

Hrmm... *Carlos mulls for a few hours*

I'll relax it to 2.4.17 in debian, but I'll leave the upstream requirement of 2.4.19.

c.

I agree that it was probably a mistake at the time since 2.4.19 seemed to solve a lot of problems... though in hindsight they are still too unstable to push forward on all of our users.

Hrmm... *Carlos mulls for a few hours*

I'll relax it to 2.4.17 in debian, but I'll leave the upstream requirement of 2.4.19.

c.

Being perverse, I tried installing 2.3.1-5. I hit the same problem that Joel mentioned previously, the old dynamic loader doesn't define GLIBC_PRIVATE. I was trying to install glibc privately in a prefix of my selection. I have been using LD_LIBRARY_PATH to select my library path. However, this no longer works since all system binaries are linked using /lib/ld.so.1 and it isn't compatible with the 2.3.1 libraries. Is there a way around this?

Dave

J. David Anglin                                  [email protected]
National Research Council of Canada              (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6605)

Being perverse, I tried installing 2.3.1-5. I hit the same problem that Joel mentioned previously, the old dynamic loader doesn't define GLIBC_PRIVATE. I was trying to install glibc privately in a prefix of my selection. I have been using LD_LIBRARY_PATH to select my library path. However, this no longer works since all system binaries are linked using /lib/ld.so.1 and it isn't compatible with the 2.3.1 libraries. Is there a way around this?

Dave

J. David Anglin                                  [email protected]
National Research Council of Canada              (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6605)

Well, I don't think it is perverse. I have already more than 10 days uptime with a machine, that runs completely with 2.3.1 (and this machine was only for about 13h idle).

In order to run with the new ld.so, you may try the following:

<prefix>/lib/ld.so.1 --library-path <prefix>/lib:<prefix>/usr/usr/lib command

or you set up a chroot system with all needed programs.

Berthold