Re: Secure Linux From Scratch

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, ashes wrote:

>
> >From what I understand et_dyn is broken in gcc-3.3. So without adding more
> patches, we could downgrade to gcc-3.2, or upgrade to gcc-3.4 with a
> backport/patch.. and that needs glibc-2.3.3. Just something to consider, but
> we'll need to do one of these to take advantage of Pax.
>

 I think that using a different version of gcc, let alone a different
version of glibc, should be a non-starter for an LFS project.  I can
cope with patching the version which is in LFS, obviously, but if SLFS
becomes too far removed from the things in LFS then the amount of
testing required will increase exponentially (and I don't mean the
security testing people here are focussed on, I mean the "can it build
everything correctly" testing).

Ken
-- 
I'm as free as a bird now, and this bird you cannot chain.
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-security
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page