binutils 2.17

[Florin Braescu]

On Thursday 22 March 2007 08:04:47 Jean Michel Bruenn wrote:
> Hello ;-)
>
> > This means something like that. However i don't have the correct
> > locations of the patch files. Can you fill them in please.
> >
> > Florin
>
> Let's wait for an answer from sofar, maybe he and others are against
> such patches.
>
> "Kok, Auke" <sofar at foo-projects.org> wrote:
> > please include (here, on this list) why we should do so. Are they
> > important? required? fixes???
>
> For people who can't simply open their favorite browser:
>
> 	I saw that you have some problems using glibc, binutils, gcc
> 	etc. I was working on an 'hardened' lunar linux version and
> 	updated manually to glibc 2.5, gcc 4.1.2, binutils 2.17.
> 	i patched this 3 modules with some patches from the LFS
> 	Community - I recompiled my system 3 times, i did this, on
> 	a second box two (tested on athlon xp 2600+ and intel p4
>         1,8ghz)
>
> 	So why it's running here on two different boxes (i use
>         some non-lunar patches) and not at lunaric-boxes?
>
> 	Now, the patches:
>
> 	-----------------------------------------------------------
> 	Patch1: binutils-2.17-lazy-1.patch
> 	I don't know if this is needed - but i think so.
>
> 	Desc:
> 		This adds -z lazy option, inverse of -z now.
>
> 	It could be interesting cause of this:
>
> 		http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2006-06/msg00190.html
> 	------------------------------------------------------------
> 	Patch2: binutils-2.17-branch_update-1.patch
> 	Well.. bugfixes are generally a good thing, aren't they?
>
> 	Desc:
> 		This is the binutils-2_17-branch (bug fix branch)
> 		update, compared from binutils-2.17-release and
> 		binutils-2_17-branch with all the fluff removed (CVS
> 		entries, maintainer files, etc).
> 	-------------------------------------------------------------
> 	Patch3: binutils-2.17-posix-1.patch
> 	Well.. Could be usefull... Could be senseless... Maybe
> 	interesting when crosscompiling..
>
> 	Desc:
> 		Makes binutils Posix Compliant
> 	--------------------------------------------------------------
> 	Patch4: binutils-2.17-hardened_tmp-3.patch
> 	Could be interesting too, it's just using a better function
> 	and so removing some compiler warnings.......
>
> 	Desc:
>
> 		This patch uses mkstemp(3) and mkdtemp(3) for
> 		temporary file creation, if they are
> 		available, rather than the default mktemp(3). This is
> 		safer and removes some compiler warnings.
>
> Cheers
> Jean
> _______________________________________________
> Lunar mailing list
> Lunar at lunar-linux.org
> http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/lunar

  Yes, but it's true for glibc 2.5. Unfortunatelly, in the moonbase we still 
have glibc version 2.3.6   :P

  Florin