FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-22-2010, 01:22 PM
Alex Schuster
 
Default glibc 2.12.1-r1 seems to not be working correctly

covici@ccs.covici.com writes:

> Hi. I am running the unstable gentoo 32-bit and today I emerged --
> amoung other packages in a system update -- glibc-2.12.1-r1, however
> after doing this at least one package had an undefined reference to
> S_ISCHR. I tried to downgrade glibc, but apparently this is not
> supported and I am a bit stumped as to how to fix this problem.

Looks like a real bad problem, I'm glad I did not update yet.

http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2010/08/18/compounded-issues-in-glibc-2-12 has
some explanation on this. I wonder how this glibx version did make it into
~arch.

> Any ideas on this would be appreciated.

Don't know. Maybe wait a little and see if another new glibc fixes this,
or the packages having issues with the new glibc might get updated.

Wonko
 
Old 08-22-2010, 01:29 PM
"Arttu V."
 
Default glibc 2.12.1-r1 seems to not be working correctly

On 8/22/10, covici@ccs.covici.com <covici@ccs.covici.com> wrote:
> Hi. I am running the unstable gentoo 32-bit and today I emerged --
> amoung other packages in a system update -- glibc-2.12.1-r1, however
> after doing this at least one package had an undefined reference to
> S_ISCHR. I tried to downgrade glibc, but apparently this is not
> supported and I am a bit stumped as to how to fix this problem.
>
> Any ideas on this would be appreciated.

Which package is failing? Please check if it is already reported, and
if not then please report a new bug, and if possible make it block
this tracker bug:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=331665

A wild guess out of the blue would be that the error could be simply a
missing include of stat.h in the package's sources. But there might be
other omissions as well, so please provide more info.

I think that unless API/ABIs were changed then the older, already
installed version should still work just fine, as then the missing
includes would only affect compile-time situation.

--
Arttu V. -- Running Gentoo is like running with scissors
 
Old 08-22-2010, 01:47 PM
 
Default glibc 2.12.1-r1 seems to not be working correctly

Arttu V. <arttuv69@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/22/10, covici@ccs.covici.com <covici@ccs.covici.com> wrote:
> > Hi. I am running the unstable gentoo 32-bit and today I emerged --
> > amoung other packages in a system update -- glibc-2.12.1-r1, however
> > after doing this at least one package had an undefined reference to
> > S_ISCHR. I tried to downgrade glibc, but apparently this is not
> > supported and I am a bit stumped as to how to fix this problem.
> >
> > Any ideas on this would be appreciated.
>
> Which package is failing? Please check if it is already reported, and
> if not then please report a new bug, and if possible make it block
> this tracker bug:
>
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=331665
>
> A wild guess out of the blue would be that the error could be simply a
> missing include of stat.h in the package's sources. But there might be
> other omissions as well, so please provide more info.
>
> I think that unless API/ABIs were changed then the older, already
> installed version should still work just fine, as then the missing
> includes would only affect compile-time situation.
>
OK, I will check on that -- I am thinking that for that package a
missing include will fix this, but I could shoot whoever broke this
without thinking at all. I wonder if the failure of php to compile
because my_compiler.h is missing has something to do with this also?


--
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is:
How do
you spend it?

John Covici
covici@ccs.covici.com
 
Old 08-22-2010, 04:22 PM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default glibc 2.12.1-r1 seems to not be working correctly

Apparently, though unproven, at 15:29 on Sunday 22 August 2010, Arttu V. did
opine thusly:

> On 8/22/10, covici@ccs.covici.com <covici@ccs.covici.com> wrote:
> > Hi. I am running the unstable gentoo 32-bit and today I emerged --
> > amoung other packages in a system update -- glibc-2.12.1-r1, however
> > after doing this at least one package had an undefined reference to
> > S_ISCHR. I tried to downgrade glibc, but apparently this is not
> > supported and I am a bit stumped as to how to fix this problem.
> >
> > Any ideas on this would be appreciated.
>
> Which package is failing? Please check if it is already reported, and
> if not then please report a new bug, and if possible make it block
> this tracker bug:
>
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=331665
>
> A wild guess out of the blue would be that the error could be simply a
> missing include of stat.h in the package's sources. But there might be
> other omissions as well, so please provide more info.
>
> I think that unless API/ABIs were changed then the older, already
> installed version should still work just fine, as then the missing
> includes would only affect compile-time situation.


There is a way to downgrade for the brave.

quickpkg glibc
move the 2.11.? version ebuild you want to your local overlay.
Edit it and find the check that disallows downgrades. Comment it out.
Mask glibc2.12
update glibc

At this point it's probably very wise to rebuild at least system, then revdep-
rebuild. Note that rebuilding system might fail in which case you are really
up the creek.

Feel free to rip to pieces the dev that committed this version. It could not
possibly have undergone decent testing

--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
 
Old 08-22-2010, 06:57 PM
 
Default glibc 2.12.1-r1 seems to not be working correctly

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> Apparently, though unproven, at 15:29 on Sunday 22 August 2010, Arttu V. did
> opine thusly:
>
> > On 8/22/10, covici@ccs.covici.com <covici@ccs.covici.com> wrote:
> > > Hi. I am running the unstable gentoo 32-bit and today I emerged --
> > > amoung other packages in a system update -- glibc-2.12.1-r1, however
> > > after doing this at least one package had an undefined reference to
> > > S_ISCHR. I tried to downgrade glibc, but apparently this is not
> > > supported and I am a bit stumped as to how to fix this problem.
> > >
> > > Any ideas on this would be appreciated.
> >
> > Which package is failing? Please check if it is already reported, and
> > if not then please report a new bug, and if possible make it block
> > this tracker bug:
> >
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=331665
> >
> > A wild guess out of the blue would be that the error could be simply a
> > missing include of stat.h in the package's sources. But there might be
> > other omissions as well, so please provide more info.
> >
> > I think that unless API/ABIs were changed then the older, already
> > installed version should still work just fine, as then the missing
> > includes would only affect compile-time situation.
>
>
> There is a way to downgrade for the brave.
>
> quickpkg glibc
> move the 2.11.? version ebuild you want to your local overlay.
> Edit it and find the check that disallows downgrades. Comment it out.
> Mask glibc2.12
> update glibc
>
> At this point it's probably very wise to rebuild at least system, then revdep-
> rebuild. Note that rebuilding system might fail in which case you are really
> up the creek.
>
> Feel free to rip to pieces the dev that committed this version. It could not
> possibly have undergone decent testing

I have another idea -- what would I have to restore from backup to
completely cancel the entire update process I have done since yesterday
-- and then I could mask off the bad glibc and be back to something at
least somewhat consistent?


--
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is:
How do
you spend it?

John Covici
covici@ccs.covici.com
 
Old 08-22-2010, 07:19 PM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default glibc 2.12.1-r1 seems to not be working correctly

Apparently, though unproven, at 20:57 on Sunday 22 August 2010,
covici@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:

> > There is a way to downgrade for the brave.
> >
> >
> >
> > quickpkg glibc
> > move the 2.11.? version ebuild you want to your local overlay.
> > Edit it and find the check that disallows downgrades. Comment it out.
> > Mask glibc2.12
> > update glibc
> >
> >
> >
> > At this point it's probably very wise to rebuild at least system, then
> > revdep- rebuild. Note that rebuilding system might fail in which case
> > you are really up the creek.
> >
> >
> >
> > Feel free to rip to pieces the dev that committed this version. It could
> > not possibly have undergone decent testing
>
> I have another idea -- what would I have to restore from backup to
> completely cancel the entire update process I have done since yesterday
> -- and then I could mask off the bad glibc and be back to something at
> least somewhat consistent?


I too have another idea - look at emerge.log and tell us what you emerged
since yesterday. Then restore those packages.


--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
 
Old 08-22-2010, 07:44 PM
 
Default glibc 2.12.1-r1 seems to not be working correctly

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> Apparently, though unproven, at 20:57 on Sunday 22 August 2010,
> covici@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
>
> > > There is a way to downgrade for the brave.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > quickpkg glibc
> > > move the 2.11.? version ebuild you want to your local overlay.
> > > Edit it and find the check that disallows downgrades. Comment it out.
> > > Mask glibc2.12
> > > update glibc
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At this point it's probably very wise to rebuild at least system, then
> > > revdep- rebuild. Note that rebuilding system might fail in which case
> > > you are really up the creek.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Feel free to rip to pieces the dev that committed this version. It could
> > > not possibly have undergone decent testing
> >
> > I have another idea -- what would I have to restore from backup to
> > completely cancel the entire update process I have done since yesterday
> > -- and then I could mask off the bad glibc and be back to something at
> > least somewhat consistent?
>
>
> I too have another idea - look at emerge.log and tell us what you emerged
> since yesterday. Then restore those packages.
>
>
> --
> alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

If I tried that -- how would I downgrade glibc in the process -- I am
sure I could figure out all the packages, but that downgrade scares me
-- would I do the packages in reverse order, or what? I also changed my
gcc before this update, I could certainly reverse that as well.

--
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is:
How do
you spend it?

John Covici
covici@ccs.covici.com
 
Old 08-22-2010, 07:56 PM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default glibc 2.12.1-r1 seems to not be working correctly

Apparently, though unproven, at 21:44 on Sunday 22 August 2010,
covici@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:

> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 20:57 on Sunday 22 August 2010,
> >
> > covici@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
> > > > There is a way to downgrade for the brave.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > quickpkg glibc
> > > > move the 2.11.? version ebuild you want to your local overlay.
> > > > Edit it and find the check that disallows downgrades. Comment it out.
> > > > Mask glibc2.12
> > > > update glibc
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At this point it's probably very wise to rebuild at least system,
> > > > then revdep- rebuild. Note that rebuilding system might fail in
> > > > which case you are really up the creek.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to rip to pieces the dev that committed this version. It
> > > > could not possibly have undergone decent testing
> > >
> > > I have another idea -- what would I have to restore from backup to
> > > completely cancel the entire update process I have done since yesterday
> > > -- and then I could mask off the bad glibc and be back to something at
> > > least somewhat consistent?
> >
> > I too have another idea - look at emerge.log and tell us what you emerged
> > since yesterday. Then restore those packages.
>
> If I tried that -- how would I downgrade glibc in the process -- I am
> sure I could figure out all the packages, but that downgrade scares me
> -- would I do the packages in reverse order, or what? I also changed my
> gcc before this update, I could certainly reverse that as well.


It all depends on what tools you have available and how many packages were
upgraded between yesterday and today. If you have tarballs for at least system
in your packages dir, then just merge the old ones back. If not, then
downgrade glibc and either emerge -e system or run revdep-rebuild.

gcc is not a major issue, it simply builds runnable code and links to other
stuff. As long as the ABI didn't change, and it didn't, gcc will not cause any
relevant problems. The real problem is glibc which provides the C library.
Almost everything links to that and it's interfaces can and do change. So
packages built since that upgrade may well break with a downgrade.

But like I said the best approach will depend on what packages are involved
and you still haven't provided that list. I used to have a crystal ball that
could gaze into your mind and your disk to find these answer, but ironically
it too is now broken by the very same glibc upgrade you are dealing with. So
you must look into this yourself. However, it's not all bad news - at least my
fee to you will not increase.




--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
 
Old 08-22-2010, 08:25 PM
Volker Armin Hemmann
 
Default glibc 2.12.1-r1 seems to not be working correctly

On Sunday 22 August 2010, covici@ccs.covici.com wrote:
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 20:57 on Sunday 22 August 2010,
> >
> > covici@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
> > > > There is a way to downgrade for the brave.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > quickpkg glibc
> > > > move the 2.11.? version ebuild you want to your local overlay.
> > > > Edit it and find the check that disallows downgrades. Comment it out.
> > > > Mask glibc2.12
> > > > update glibc
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At this point it's probably very wise to rebuild at least system,
> > > > then revdep- rebuild. Note that rebuilding system might fail in
> > > > which case you are really up the creek.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to rip to pieces the dev that committed this version. It
> > > > could not possibly have undergone decent testing
> > >
> > > I have another idea -- what would I have to restore from backup to
> > > completely cancel the entire update process I have done since yesterday
> > > -- and then I could mask off the bad glibc and be back to something at
> > > least somewhat consistent?
> >
> > I too have another idea - look at emerge.log and tell us what you emerged
> > since yesterday. Then restore those packages.
>
> If I tried that -- how would I downgrade glibc in the process -- I am
> sure I could figure out all the packages, but that downgrade scares me
> -- would I do the packages in reverse order, or what? I also changed my
> gcc before this update, I could certainly reverse that as well.

you can also leave that glibc version in place. Only a few packages are
affected, most are fixed already. Just sync and retry the failing package.
No need to downgrade glibc and recompile a bunch of packages. Besides, between
2.12.1 and 2.12.0 you should not need to recompile anything.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:45 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org