Rick Macdonald wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Emil Pedersen wrote: > > > I just struggled my way to through to get LFS (large file support) in a > > potato system installed about six months ago. What I had to do was to > > compile new kernel (2.4.9 + aacraid patch) since I upgraded from (a > > perfectly stable) 2.2.19, you shouldn't have to do this if you're > > already using 2.4.x. > > Installed this just to find out that I still could not create large > > files, the struggle began. In the end it turned out to be really > > simple; You can not use 'libc6' from stable (potato), but have to go > > with testing/unstable. (I got the impression that one could also > > recompile libc against the 2.4 headers, but I just downloaded 'libc6' > > and 'libc6-dev' from testing.) > > They will likely conflict with some installed packages you may have (I > > had to adjust locale, libstdc++ and a few XXXX-dev packages), but should > > be solvable by installing/removing/reinstalling the troublesome packages > > manually. Just take it easy and don't make any drastic changes. > > > > Once libc6 and depending packages were setup properly, I used dd to > > create a file of 3.5G just to try. Worked liked a charm. Hopefully I > > don't have to reboot for at least another 150-days period... > > Just to be sure that I understand, besides having the libc6 and other > packages from testing/unstable, one _must_ also be using a 2.4.x kernel. > Is that correct? Do you also have to "turn on" some large file option when > configuring the kernel or is it the default?
I _think_ you could find a patch against the 2.2.x series, but I'm not sure. It's just the impression I got surfing around to gather some useful info before I started. I just thought the simplest way would be to upgrade to a 2.4 kernel. The 2.4 kernels (after 2.4.0test7 if I understood correctly) have this support by default. I actually looked more than once for some option to tweak but couldn't find any. It "just worked" while libc6 was in place. > Any idea if you really need packages from unstable, or is testing (woody) > good enough? I used 'libc6_2.2.4-5_i386.deb' which I'm pretty sure came from testing (I don't have unstable in my source.list). Besides that I think it depends on what packages are on your machine. My was a quite striped server, thus there was just a few complaints when installing libc6-dev. I don't surely remember whatever 'locale' complained about 'libc6' or 'libc6-dev' but besides that (if any) I didn't get any complaints against libc6, only the -dev part. // Emil
