Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix

glibc 2.1 is out 90

Posted by Hemos from the rolling-the-code-out dept.
GTM writes "I have just seen this on the main page of LinuxHQ, and haven't even taken time to download it yet : after 2 years of development, the GNU C Library 2.1 is available. Nice to see it appear short after the release of the 2.2 Linux kernel. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

glibc 2.1 is out More

glibc 2.1 is out

Comments Filter:
  • Just add the following line to your /etc/apt/sources.list

    deb http://www.debian.org/~espy/ glibc-2.1/binary-i386/

    then run apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade
  • The packages will be signed when they are uploaded into the main archive. espy happens to be the libc maintainer for debian, If you can't trust these packages you might as well not trust anything you download off the net.
  • Yeah, but you may notice a small disparity in those patchlevel numbers... It isn't 2.0.1 you're running there, after all. 2.2.* will get there... it just needs a little time to shake the bugs out.
  • Yeah... the machine that I've been using for kernels from 2.1.x up through 2.2.1 hasn't even got a floppy drive, or any other removable media, for that matter, and never has. I booted the thing the first time off a 120M drive I pulled out of another Linux box that I'd upgraded to a 2.1G, changed hostnames and IPs and the like, and off she went... She communicates with the rest of the world over ARCnet... if for some reason I need some of her data on a floppy, I just transfer it to another machine and to a floppy from there.
  • Posted by irritron:

    Funny I am using gcc version egcs-2.90.29 980515 (egcs-1.0.3 release) and both Window Maker and the
    Gimp built, and run fine. But i have seen some problems with egcs and C++ over here. OffiX would
    not compile for me.
  • Posted by Atma David Stormfighter:

    hey... you managed to upgrade from libc5->glibc2? I need help with it, I've tried the walk-throughs and they always die on compiling the compiler to use glibc2 instead of libc5. I'm using a nearly unmodified Slackware 3.5 distribution, and I seriously need glibc2, since GTK+-1.1.x really wants it, and ninety percent of the stuff I wanna use needs GTK+. q= So... if you can help me, please send it my way, removing the NO-SPAM. from my addy, of course. q=
  • Posted by Myrdraal:

    A good place for glibc compiling information is the glibc HOWTO. http://www.imaxx.net/~thrytis /glibc/Glibc2-HOWTO.html [imaxx.net] - However, it is a little bit outdated. You no longer need the localedata addon with glibc 2.1, so you can just ignore the references to that.
    -Myrdraal
  • So does anyone know if this means that PPC users can start R4-->R5 upgrade? This is what we've all been waiting for, right?

    Gee, just can't wait to reformat/reinstall....
  • Guess RMS got flamed pretty hard after that Lesser GPL quip.
  • Oh yea, we were talking about the GPL, not the LGPL there. Sorry.

    " GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
    Version 2, June 1991

    ...
    ...
    ...
    10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
    programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
    to ask for permission....

    [the program program would there be the GPL'ed programm... if the author of the program with the "other" dist conditions would have to ask the author for permisson to inorporate part of the GPL programm is not clear.]
    ...
    ...
    ...
    [At the end of the license:]
    This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
    proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
    consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
    library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General
    Public License instead of this License."

    That is you cant link it to proprietary programs. That would allow programs under other licenses wich count as "non propriteary" to link to it. Im not sure tho, I only skimmed thru the GPL this time.
  • Yes, that was what I was saying too, perhaps it was not clear. That is, you should be able to link some code to GPL'ed code, as long as its free. Not gratis, really really free. I also pointed out earlier that there were not many such licenses other than the GPL.
  • yabber, yabber, yabber. the anonymous pests of slashdot descend on yet another post that was veering dangerously close to the Other Side of the Coin. since you have no intention of discussing the matter without resorting to name-calling and the arrogant belief that your comments are more worthy of attention than someone else's, be quiet and let the rational people talk in peace . . .
  • I downloaded and installed a pre-2.1 release and everything worked fine except StarOffice (what a surprise - the only application I don't have the source code for is the one that breaks). This is fairly critical for me as all my accounts are in StarOffice, and I wouldn't want to lose it just yet.
    --
  • Really - this must affect a huge amount of people - and RH6 will be out soon enough, and SO won't run on it. I hope something can be done about this. I'd rather not lose all my accounts <g>.
    --

  • glibc 2.1 (Score:1)

    by jd ( 1658 )
    Hmmm. This should be interesting. I fully expect some networking code (esp. multicast routers) to need patching for this. Just thought - compiling glibc-2.1's going to be painfully slow, on my machine. Does anyone have a pre-compiled set (pref. using a very recent PGCC)?
  • Let's see... I'll start by saying that there are a
    few THOUSAND technical websites that Linux can
    reach and NT cannot, and that glibc 2.1 will help.
    Some strange, mysterious, proprietary protocol? No.
    Just IPv6, which is still pre-alpha for Windows.
  • "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade'
  • Yes. The thing is, when you upgrade libc, you have to recompile everything that depends on it. It's much better to use a package system where each package maintainer is responsible for recompiling his/her own package and everyone can download the updates. I know that I can't really leave my computer compiling everything from source..Gnome takes all morning, the whole system would probably take a week or so and be broken for a month. :-)

    Daniel
  • I wasn't around then but I heard somewhere it was the same with 2.0.[early] ?
  • If you like SysVinit and PAM, choose RedHat.

    I, personally hate both of them. And I love Slackware for being the last remaining distro
    with the old Linux spirit : take the best from
    BSD and SysV.

  • > Every change to Linux results in more and more problems. Its why real operating systems change

    Are you sane? Every change to linux adds features and fixes bugs. And by the way, this is glibc (the gnu c library) not linux (the kernel put out by wonderful such as Linus and Alan Cox). Please don't be ignorant.

    > very infrequently. OS's like Solaris, AIX and NT. Thier users sleep soundly at night without
    > the nightmare fear of the hacker community "fixing" a non-problem or bloating out the
    > libraries again. Just like now.

    In this sentance, you have included NT with the likes of Solaris and AIX and called them all "Real" operating systems. I can understand Solaris and AIX being "Real" OSes, but NT? What criteria have you used to decide this? It certainly couldn't be based on either speed, stability, or security. If you had bothered to go to the site listed in the posting, you would have seen the large list of bugfixes and useful added features. And whether NT users sleep soundly at night or not, it pribably has nothing to do with their choice of OS.

    > The new release of glibc is just "jobs for the boys" GPL developers changing things just to
    > keep themselves employed.

    This is laughable. "jobs for the boys"? Most of the people who worked on this release, with the exception of some at Cygnus I believe, did this work for _free_ outside their normal job. To claim other wise is downright stupid.

    > 1999 will be the year when IBM, Dell, Compaq and others expose this schit and we can get back to stability.

    Oh, this explains all of their recent commitments to sell linux. Unless by "back to stability" you mean away from NT. In that context the sentance makes sense.

    > Keep those changes coming people. Its the only way you can sell your "support" contract. Ya
    > know, break things on purpose and charge for the fixes. Just like M$

    No, not like M$. M$ doesn't fix anything, but charges for it anyways.

    Rob, _please_ get rid of ACs. I was of two minds about this until very recently, but I've come to the conclusion that most of the time they just are stupid. And _please_ no one give me that crap about privacy. Thats just bull$!@#. I have an account, and it didn't hurt to get it.

  • Strings (Score:1)

    by Puff ( 3954 )
    I have heard that the latest ANSI C specification specifys some string handling functions. On the page referenced by the link on the story above, it mentions that new string functions added. Does anybody know if these strings that have been added are the new ANSI C Strings? Or am I way off track here?
  • I have to admit, I did speak rashly. The FQDN idea is a good one.

  • "Every change to Linux results in more and more problems. Its why real operating systems change very infrequently."

    An articulate observation! That's why everyone should use MS-DOS 3.2. Without those annoying upgrades like multitasking, security fixes, and support for cdroms or hard drives bigger than 500 meg. It's so simple what could go wrong?

    Aside from your grasping for straws (NT unchanged?), do you do have a good point. Support isn't going to be what drives the money in the relm of open source and GPLed software. It will be hardware manufacturers advertising a better option and writing drivers so the platform independant APIs/kernel can make their superior hardware run circles around the the status quo.

    "1999 will be the year when IBM, Dell, Compaq and others expose this schit and we can get back to stability."

    Who knows about Dell, they will likely play both sides off the middle until a winner becomes clear.

    IBM wants to see M$ gone so they can take over and are our friends(at least in the short term), and Compaq is one of those companies with the superior hardware (Alpha) who can use the intrapolarity of Linux as a long term viability argument.

    That ends our lesson on how to give both sides of an argument so you don't sound like a crazy fanatic. Incidentally do you stand to lose a job or stock value if M$ market share goes down?

  • What (if any) changes would I see from a user's perspective, using a system built around this library as versus one built around the earler version?
  • StarOffice is broken. It uses internal libc symbols which aren't supposed to be used by applications, because they are constantly subject to change. The release note says that mechanisms have been put in place to avoid this in the future. However, this cannot fix older, broken applications. Thus, StarOffice will not work with glibc 2.1. Yet another example of why source code is important.

    --
  • This sounds like some M$ minion trolling as hard as they can.

    The big difference between so called commerical "real" OS and the open "free" OS, is choice and certainary.

    Choice as and when you wish upgrade to the next stable version you can. (Personally I'm waiting for 2.2.x, x > 4, before I upgrade the kernal.)

    Even when you don't chose to upgrade at every announcement, becuase of the very active and public development you can feel that things are always improving.

    This sense of movement is typified by the 'ld core' bug in the early 2.2.x kernal. Discovered and fixed within half a day. I can image a "real" OS vendor, spending the first month before getting the fix through both marketing and the layers.

    This all provides a deep certainary, and security, that the underlying OS is the best it can be and, if not, will be improved quickly and in a public manner.

    es


  • I understand that is a microkernel design, but other than that what is the point? Linux is already here and although it may not be perfect I can't think of a better system for the hardware it runs on. From what I understand there are a few things that FreeBSD does better or more efficiently, but overall linux is still a better system. So now we have hurd. I'm not even going to go as far as to make fun of it with the letter T. Whoever came up with the name clearly didn't think about how easily it could be maligned. I've never used Hurd, I've only read about it. It may have the foundations of a great system, but is it necessary? I'm not a kernel hacker so I don't know how difficult it would be to evolve the linux kernel to the point that it had the features that hurd promises. I just think that the effort to develop hurd would be better spend developing and improving linux. We don't have an infinite supply of programming talent at our disposal.
  • Don't be affraid! 2.2.0 (yeah, I know..need to upgrade..) is VERY stable, and 3-4X faster if you're running SMP... there are little buggies here and there, but no show stoppers.. I would suspect that the majority of the bugs are in little used/adbused sections of the kernel. The sooner everyone jumps in there and tries is, the sooner all of the bugs get found! Just thik about it this way, all you have to do to roll back is change a symbolic link and reboot from a different kernel...
  • RMS basically wants all developers to use the GPL for libraries, not the LGPL. The difference being that you can't even link your app against a GPL library without GPL'ing your own app. The rationale behind this is that he believes this will give free software an edge over proprietary software, which will be denied the use of superior GPL'd libs.

    It's a matter of perspective. RMS sees proprietary software using LGPL libraries as a free ride that isn't returning anything to free software. I'm more inclined to agree with ESR though and say that use of LGPL code in proprietary software gives free software leverage over the commercial code by requiring it to target a specific API. Thus allowing the free software developers to set the standard. It's rather like the power Microsoft wields, with the crucial difference: it's all open and free.
  • I transfer files betweeen home and lab by the floppy/IP protocol :) or, more accurately, floppy/tar. who use filesystems on floppies anymore?
  • Yep, glibc 2.1 is supposed to be able to run all apps compiled against 2.0, unmodified. And it's a *major* upgrade, almost comparable to the kernel jumping from 2.0.x to 2.2.x. it's true that we're getting new major versions of a lot of things all in a row... and in a matter of months we get the GNOME release, XFree 4, and Mozilla!
  • ARGH! did the guys at StarDiv *have* to break it so bad? more confirmation that the process of open development does produce better code...
  • "...Why don't you try something out yourself before questioning its value, and contribute kernel patches before using talking about allocating kernel hacker programming talent. You'll have more of a leg to stand on and you just might learn something along the way..."

    Don't be so upset...maybe this guy is a manager. In which case, his actions of making uninformed decisions are actually par for the course.
  • : undefined symbol: __register_frame_info

    I was missing the same symbols when installing KDE on a rh5.0 system. You need libstdc++-2.8.0. The rpm from rh5.2 should drop right in.
  • simply set your threshold to 1 and you wont see the anonymous posts. warning: untested advice.
  • What, no ZIP Disk?

    -- Keith
  • I just installed glibc2.1 on debian slink (debian version 2.1). and it breaks most binaries from what i have seen do to the following library.

    libwcsmbs.so.0.0 is broken by the glibc2.1 install and will force you to having to reinstall slink.
  • One of the problems here is that GPL'ing a library doesn't just prevent use of it for proprietary apps, but for all apps under licenses not compatible with the GPL, which is essentially most licenses free and non-free alike.

    I think what you'll see by going for the GPL for libraries too, is that you'll have multiple implementations of most interesting libraries - one GPL'd, and at least one under another license.

    So what advantage would the free software world get? A lot of duplicated work, and less focus on filling new niches, while wealthy corporations easily can afford to buy third competing third party libraries to link their code against?

    I don't want lots of apps linked against different libraries with the same functionality just because they're under different licenses.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger

Close