Anyone successfully built and using glibc-2.12.1 yet?
I see the tree just pushed an update down from 2.11.2 to 2.12.1, and
downgrading that package is decidedly non-trivial. Only comment I can find at
this early stage is flameeye's blog, and this makes me quadruple nervous:
And if you say that “the new GLIBC works for me”, are you saying that the
package itself builds or if it’s actually integrated correctly? Because, you
know, I used to rebuild the whole system whenever I made a change to basic
system packages when I maintained Gentoo/FreeBSD, and saying that it’s ready
for ~arch when you haven’t even rebuilt the system (and you haven’t, or you
would have noticed that m4 was broken) is definitely something I’d define as
reckless and I’d venture to say you’re not good material to work on the
quality assurance status.
“correctness” in the case of the system C library would be “it a t least
leaves the system set building and running”; glibc 2.12 does not work this
way.
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
08-17-2010, 09:56 AM
Graham Murray
glibc-2.12.1
I have glibc-2.12.1 running on two ~x86 systems with no problems so far.
> Hi,
>
> Anyone successfully built and using glibc-2.12.1 yet?
>
> I see the tree just pushed an update down from 2.11.2 to 2.12.1, and
> downgrading that package is decidedly non-trivial. Only comment I can find at
> this early stage is flameeye's blog, and this makes me quadruple nervous:
>
>
>
>
> And if you say that “the new GLIBC works for me”, are you saying that the
> package itself builds or if it’s actually integrated correctly? Because, you
> know, I used to rebuild the whole system whenever I made a change to basic
> system packages when I maintained Gentoo/FreeBSD, and saying that it’s ready
> for ~arch when you haven’t even rebuilt the system (and you haven’t, or you
> would have noticed that m4 was broken) is definitely something I’d define as
> reckless and I’d venture to say you’re not good material to work on the
> quality assurance status.
>
> “correctness” in the case of the system C library would be “it a t least
> leaves the system set building and running”; glibc 2.12 does not work this
> way.
08-17-2010, 01:21 PM
Peter Ruskin
glibc-2.12.1
On Tuesday 17 August 2010 09:33:09 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anyone successfully built and using glibc-2.12.1 yet?
>
> I see the tree just pushed an update down from 2.11.2 to 2.12.1,
> and downgrading that package is decidedly non-trivial. Only
> comment I can find at this early stage is flameeye's blog, and
> this makes me quadruple nervous:
>
>
>
>
> And if you say that “the new GLIBC works for me”, are you saying
> that the package itself builds or if it’s actually integrated
> correctly? Because, you know, I used to rebuild the whole system
> whenever I made a change to basic system packages when I
> maintained Gentoo/FreeBSD, and saying that it’s ready for ~arch
> when you haven’t even rebuilt the system (and you haven’t, or you
> would have noticed that m4 was broken) is definitely something
> I’d define as reckless and I’d venture to say you’re not good
> material to work on the quality assurance status.
>
> “correctness” in the case of the system C library would be “it a
> t least leaves the system set building and running”; glibc 2.12
> does not work this way.
OK here on ~amd64, but you got me worried so I emerged m4 to check
and that went OK too.
On Tuesday 17 August 2010 15:21:35 Peter Ruskin wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 August 2010 09:33:09 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Anyone successfully built and using glibc-2.12.1 yet?
> >
> > I see the tree just pushed an update down from 2.11.2 to 2.12.1,
> > and downgrading that package is decidedly non-trivial. Only
> > comment I can find at this early stage is flameeye's blog, and
> > this makes me quadruple nervous:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > And if you say that “the new GLIBC works for me”, are you saying
> > that the package itself builds or if it’s actually integrated
> > correctly? Because, you know, I used to rebuild the whole system
> > whenever I made a change to basic system packages when I
> > maintained Gentoo/FreeBSD, and saying that it’s ready for ~arch
> > when you haven’t even rebuilt the system (and you haven’t, or you
> > would have noticed that m4 was broken) is definitely something
> > I’d define as reckless and I’d venture to say you’re not good
> > material to work on the quality assurance status.
> >
> > “correctness” in the case of the system C library would be “it a
> > t least leaves the system set building and running”; glibc 2.12
> > does not work this way.
>
> OK here on ~amd64, but you got me worried so I emerged m4 to check
> and that went OK too.
I got a couple of replies, all like this one - positive.
Thanks, all. I'll start the update later on tonight and let 'er run.
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
08-17-2010, 04:30 PM
Zhu Sha Zang
glibc-2.12.1
Em 17-08-2010 12:34, Alan McKinnon escreveu:
On Tuesday 17 August 2010 15:21:35 Peter Ruskin wrote:
On Tuesday 17 August 2010 09:33:09 Alan McKinnon wrote:
Hi,
Anyone successfully built and using glibc-2.12.1 yet?
I see the tree just pushed an update down from 2.11.2 to 2.12.1,
and downgrading that package is decidedly non-trivial. Only
comment I can find at this early stage is flameeye's blog, and
this makes me quadruple nervous:
And if you say that “the new GLIBC works for me”, are you saying
that the package itself builds or if it’s actually integrated
correctly? Because, you know, I used to rebuild the whole system
whenever I made a change to basic system packages when I
maintained Gentoo/FreeBSD, and saying that it’s ready for ~arch
when you haven’t even rebuilt the system (and you haven’t, or you
would have noticed that m4 was broken) is definitely something
I’d define as reckless and I’d venture to say you’re not good
material to work on the quality assurance status.
“correctness” in the case of the system C library would be “it a
t least leaves the system set building and running”; glibc 2.12
does not work this way.
OK here on ~amd64, but you got me worried so I emerged m4 to check
and that went OK too.
I got a couple of replies, all like this one - positive.
Thanks, all. I'll start the update later on tonight and let 'er run.
I'm trying to upgrade my glibc from 2.10.1-r1 to 2.10.1-r1 or 2.12.1
but i'm blocked with a error on compilation in two c2q machines
using x86_64 profile.
I think that i have some misconfiguration in CFLAGS, but i don't know solve this error.
Some hint???
Thanks for now.
08-17-2010, 11:32 PM
William Kenworthy
glibc-2.12.1
Hi Alan, a suggestion - for "mission critical" clone one of your systems
into a vm (dd), get it working, upgrade and test.
Or clone to a chroot and do the same.
Not quite 100% - but allows some peace of mind!
BillK
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 17:34 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 August 2010 15:21:35 Peter Ruskin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 August 2010 09:33:09 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Anyone successfully built and using glibc-2.12.1 yet?
> > >
> > > I see the tree just pushed an update down from 2.11.2 to 2.12.1,
> > > and downgrading that package is decidedly non-trivial. Only
> > > comment I can find at this early stage is flameeye's blog, and
> > > this makes me quadruple nervous:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And if you say that “the new GLIBC works for me”, are you saying
> > > that the package itself builds or if it’s actually integrated
> > > correctly? Because, you know, I used to rebuild the whole system
> > > whenever I made a change to basic system packages when I
> > > maintained Gentoo/FreeBSD, and saying that it’s ready for ~arch
> > > when you haven’t even rebuilt the system (and you haven’t, or you
> > > would have noticed that m4 was broken) is definitely something
> > > I’d define as reckless and I’d venture to say you’re not good
> > > material to work on the quality assurance status.
> > >
> > > “correctness” in the case of the system C library would be “it a
> > > t least leaves the system set building and running”; glibc 2.12
> > > does not work this way.
> >
> > OK here on ~amd64, but you got me worried so I emerged m4 to check
> > and that went OK too.
>
>
> I got a couple of replies, all like this one - positive.
>
> Thanks, all. I'll start the update later on tonight and let 'er run.
>
>
>
--
William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>
Home in Perth!
08-18-2010, 02:05 PM
Alan McKinnon
glibc-2.12.1
On Wednesday 18 August 2010 01:32:32 William Kenworthy wrote:
> Hi Alan, a suggestion - for "mission critical" clone one of your systems
> into a vm (dd), get it working, upgrade and test.
>
> Or clone to a chroot and do the same.
>
> Not quite 100% - but allows some peace of mind!
Hi Bill,
Good advice in general, but not really applicable to the specifics of my
situation.
Being the dyed-in-the-wool gentoo fanatic that I am, I refuse to install it on
production machines. I have 100+ of those and every one is different so things
simply do not scale. Workload would increase hugely, not decrease, if I used
gentoo.
It's my personal laptop that wants glibc upgraded. I use gentoo on all my
personal machines and the -dev boxes too - USE makes it trivially easy to
change the environment for whatever R&D is needed.
But for critical production machines? Not a flying chance in hell :-)
Too many times I've had to sort out the carnage from idiotic juniors who
blindly run "emerge -uND world" and walk away thinking Unix always works like
RedHat.
Gentoo requires far too much intelligence from it's sysadmin for maintenance
to be automated - either by software means or by human means.
{I just know I'm gonna get flamed for this now :-) }
>
> BillK
>
> On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 17:34 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 August 2010 15:21:35 Peter Ruskin wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 17 August 2010 09:33:09 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Anyone successfully built and using glibc-2.12.1 yet?
> > > >
> > > > I see the tree just pushed an update down from 2.11.2 to 2.12.1,
> > > > and downgrading that package is decidedly non-trivial. Only
> > > > comment I can find at this early stage is flameeye's blog, and
> > > > this makes me quadruple nervous:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And if you say that “the new GLIBC works for me”, are you saying
> > > > that the package itself builds or if it’s actually integrated
> > > > correctly? Because, you know, I used to rebuild the whole system
> > > > whenever I made a change to basic system packages when I
> > > > maintained Gentoo/FreeBSD, and saying that it’s ready for ~arch
> > > > when you haven’t even rebuilt the system (and you haven’t, or you
> > > > would have noticed that m4 was broken) is definitely something
> > > > I’d define as reckless and I’d venture to say you’re not good
> > > > material to work on the quality assurance status.
> > > >
> > > > “correctness” in the case of the system C library would be “it a
> > > > t least leaves the system set building and running”; glibc 2.12
> > > > does not work this way.
> > >
> > > OK here on ~amd64, but you got me worried so I emerged m4 to check
> > > and that went OK too.
> >
> > I got a couple of replies, all like this one - positive.
> >
> > Thanks, all. I'll start the update later on tonight and let 'er run.
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
08-19-2010, 12:49 PM
Neil Bothwick
glibc-2.12.1
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:05:05 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> But for critical production machines? Not a flying chance in hell :-)
> Too many times I've had to sort out the carnage from idiotic juniors
> who blindly run "emerge -uND world" and walk away thinking Unix always
> works like RedHat.
Why do you give these idiotic juniors the root password/sudo emerge rights?
--
Neil Bothwick
Top Oxymorons Number 28: Butt Head
08-19-2010, 03:55 PM
Alan McKinnon
glibc-2.12.1
Apparently, though unproven, at 14:49 on Thursday 19 August 2010, Neil
Bothwick did opine thusly:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:05:05 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > But for critical production machines? Not a flying chance in hell :-)
> > Too many times I've had to sort out the carnage from idiotic juniors
> > who blindly run "emerge -uND world" and walk away thinking Unix always
> > works like RedHat.
>
> Why do you give these idiotic juniors the root password/sudo emerge rights?
Because I have better things to do than log into 137 machines and do what it
takes to update world on each one? Remember this ain't a cluster - only about
20 of them share any kind of common usage.
Besides, if I don't give them some form of responsibility they will never
become responsible.
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
08-19-2010, 05:28 PM
Neil Bothwick
glibc-2.12.1
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:55:02 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Besides, if I don't give them some form of responsibility they will
> never become responsible.
Unfortunately, the converse is not necessarily true
--
Neil Bothwick
We have a equal opportunity Calculus class -- it's fully integrated.
glibc-2.12.1
