[Clfs-dev] Updating EGLIBC configure command

[William Harrington]

On Aug 29, 2012, at 16:27 PM, g.esp at free.fr wrote:

>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "William Harrington" <berzerkula at cox.net>
>> À: "CLFS development discussion" <clfs-dev at lists.cross-lfs.org>
>> Envoyé: Mercredi 29 Août 2012 22:34:30
>> Objet: [Clfs-dev] Updating EGLIBC configure command
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> The next change I'd like to make is to the eglibc configure commands
>> in all sections.
>>
>> We do not need --enable-kernel=2.6.0
>>
>> It makes it so that build can be ran when the host is using a 2.6.0
>> kernel.
>>
>> That is way outdated and it increases the eglibc install size with  
>> a huge
>> amount of compatability syscall support for all kernels to 2.6.0.
>>
>> I suggest we use the minimum version for udev 182 to work properly.
>> In the UDEV-182
>> README it states that the required kernel is 2.6.34. I suggest we put
>> that for the --enable-kernel switch.
>>
>> Users can still use a host running a 2.6.0 kernel (hah like that is a
>> fat chance), but they won't be able to chroot into the system as libc
>> will expect a kernel version of 2.6.34 or greater.
>>
>> Users can do maintenance, however, but not chroot.
>>
>> Here is the documentation for the --enable-kernel option if the
>> reader is unsure of its operation.
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Configuring-and-
>> compiling.html
>>
>> Just to let you konw that is valid as eglibc pulls its tree from
>> glibc and then include their own patches.
>>
>> Any thoughts from the community?
>>
> That would break users on /RHEL/CentOS/-{5,6}, on Ubuntu-10.04, on  
> Debian-6, so 2.6.34 should be a bit too aggressive.
> 2.6.32 is more balanced.
> LFS elected 2.6.25 that match with previous (now retired) debian-5  
> kernel release.
>
> Gilles
>

I was bringing that up with Jonathan as well. 2.6.25 is still too  
old. Users should be able to build their own kernels and update their  
hosts or use newer host OS's.

Going through distrowatch this is what I get:

ARCH:  3.5.3 current  3.0.3 from 2011.
CentOS: People shouldn't use this as a host anyway, they are too out  
of date! it's 2012 and they are still on 2 6.32 (maybe distrowatch  
isn't updated for this distro)
Debian: squeeze (6.0) is still using 2.6.32, past taht it's 3.2
Gentoo: 2.6.37 since 11.0 release and they are in 3.x now
Redhat: Look at CentOS
Slackware: Good since 13.37 with a 2.6.37 kernel
Ubuntu: 2.6.38 since natty 11.04

I don't know... I really don't like the idea of 2.6.25. It's way old  
as well.
I say at least 2.6.32 maybe like you mentioned.

Sincerely,

William Harrington