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 02-09-2011, 10:48 PM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default glibc 2.13 warning

Apparently, though unproven, at 00:23 on Thursday 10 February 2011, Nils
Holland did opine thusly:

> On 13:34 Mon 07 Feb , Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > Don't install glibc-2.13 if you either use prelinking or run postfix.
> > After testing it on my netbook, which uses neither, I installed it on my
> > desktop and home server and broke both.
>
> Thanks a lot, I've read your mail just in time. Actually, glibc 2.13
> krept onto my first machine Monday night - I generally test new
> versions of such "far reaching" stuff as glibc on a single machine
> first before letting to onto all of my boxes. I didn't have any
> problems with the new glibc, and tonight I would have updated a few
> additional machines, one of which happens to run Postfix. I guess I'm
> going to delay that a bit now. ;-)

This raises an interesting point.

glibc is a problematic package, it's tentacles run very deep in any GNU
system, it has a less than stellar history in terms of breaking gentoo systems
(mostly due to inadequate testing before releasing to ~arch)

And it's very difficult to downgrade it due to that hidden barf check in the
ebuild. I have yet to find a supported, documented way to back out of glibc
screw-ups; my way is to keep binpkgs of @system and use those.

Yes it's true that downgrading glibc is often a sure road to suicide, but the
current method is also unworkable. Surely, surely, there's a better way?

I'd even go so far as to support a portage feature-request: automatic binpkgs
of a sub-set of @system that the user must opt-out of in make.conf: python,
portage, glibc, gcc, maybe a few other highly critical packages.

What say you all?

--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
 
Old 02-09-2011, 11:02 PM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default glibc 2.13 warning

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:48:18 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> And it's very difficult to downgrade it due to that hidden barf check
> in the ebuild. I have yet to find a supported, documented way to back
> out of glibc screw-ups; my way is to keep binpkgs of @system and use
> those.
>

The trouble is that binpkgs keep a copy of the ebuild in them, so even if
you remove the downgrade check fro the in-tree ebuild, it still fails.
That one had me scratching my head for a few minutes.

The thing is, a downgrade like that one is not a problem, especially if
done soon after the upgrade. The problems arise when you build other
packages against the later glibc and then downgrade.

We need a more intelligent test and we need a way of circumventing the
restriction that doesn't involve editing the ebuild, something like

I_KNOW_ITS_DODGY_BUT_IM_DESPERATE=true emerge <sys-libs/glibc-2.13


--
Neil Bothwick

Famed tautologist dies of suicide in distressing tragedy
 
Old 02-09-2011, 11:05 PM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default glibc 2.13 warning

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 15:34:59 -0800, walt wrote:

> On 02/09/2011 02:31 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 23:23:50 +0100, Nils Holland wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks a lot, I've read your mail just in time. Actually, glibc 2.13
> >> krept onto my first machine Monday night - I generally test new
> >> versions of such "far reaching" stuff as glibc on a single machine
> >> first before letting to onto all of my boxes. I didn't have any
> >> problems with the new glibc, and tonight I would have updated a few
> >> additional machines, one of which happens to run Postfix.
> >
> > That's what happened to me, I updated one box, rebooted, made sure
> > things worked and then updated the Postfix server and the prelinked
> > desktop.
>
> Could you explain a bit about prelinking? Does it have anything to do
> with the sys-devel/prelink package or the gentoo 'prelink' useflag?

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/prelink-howto.xml explains it, although it
misses out the part about it speeding up the reduction of your system to
a useless wreck with a broken glibc

Apparently, prelinking is less of a benefit than it used to be. I can't
say I've noticed any difference having removed it this wekk and may well
not reinstall it when glibc is fixed. I suspect a lot will feel the same.

> Or maybe Alan, if he's done polishing his humility plugin

What make you think he's got one... or even know what it is


--
Neil Bothwick

Sir! Romulan warbird decloaki╗«§¸Ř┴ NO CARRIER
 
Old 02-09-2011, 11:09 PM
Philip Webb
 
Default glibc 2.13 warning

110210 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> glibc is problematic, it's tentacles run very deep in any GNU system,
> it has a less than stellar history in terms of breaking gentoo systems,
> mostly due to inadequate testing before releasing to ~arch.
> it's v difficult to downgrade it due to that hidden barf check in the ebuild.
> I'd support a portage feature-request:
> automatic binpkgs of a sub-set of @system
> that the user must opt-out of in make.conf:
> python, portage, glibc, gcc, maybe a few others
> What say you all?

I avoid such problems by 2 simple precautions:
(1) I never use testing versions of system pkgs like Glibc &
(2) I have FEATURES="buildsyspkg" in make.conf .
Beyond those, I'ld say Gentoo users are grown-ups who don't need coddling.

--
========================,,======================== ====================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
 
Old 02-09-2011, 11:18 PM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default glibc 2.13 warning

Apparently, though unproven, at 02:05 on Thursday 10 February 2011, Neil
Bothwick did opine thusly:


> > Or maybe Alan, if he's done polishing his humility plugin
>
> What make you think he's got one... or even know what it is

Yeah, come to think of it, what is that thing anyway? Must be related to the
certificate I got at last year's end-of-year function.

After all the usual ones (employee of the quarter), and the unusual ones (most
gratuitous use of the word fuck in a work context - [my manager]) there was a
special presentation:

====
PEDANTIC OVERLORD

For ruling Unix shell and Tacacs access with an adamantium fist.
No exceptions!
=====

Presented to: you guessed it

:-)


--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
 
Old 02-09-2011, 11:27 PM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default glibc 2.13 warning

On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:09:14 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:

> (1) I never use testing versions of system pkgs like Glibc &

Someone has to or they'll never get tested.

> (2) I have FEATURES="buildsyspkg" in make.conf .

It didn't help here.

> Beyond those, I'ld say Gentoo users are grown-ups who don't need
> coddling.

The problem is that we are being coddled with the "we won't let you
downgrade because we don't think it is safe for you" ebuilds. We're
asking for less coddling, to be able to make our own decisions and be
able to keep the pieces if they turn out to be wrong. A stern warning
should be sufficient.


--
Neil Bothwick

Documentation: (n.) a novel sold with software, designed to entertain the
operator during episodes of bugs or glitches.
 
Old 02-10-2011, 12:41 AM
Dale
 
Default glibc 2.13 warning

Alan McKinnon wrote:

Apparently, though unproven, at 02:05 on Thursday 10 February 2011, Neil
Bothwick did opine thusly:




Or maybe Alan, if he's done polishing his humility plugin


What make you think he's got one... or even know what it is


Yeah, come to think of it, what is that thing anyway? Must be related to the
certificate I got at last year's end-of-year function.

After all the usual ones (employee of the quarter), and the unusual ones (most
gratuitous use of the word fuck in a work context - [my manager]) there was a
special presentation:

====
PEDANTIC OVERLORD

For ruling Unix shell and Tacacs access with an adamantium fist.
No exceptions!
=====

Presented to: you guessed it

:-)





This reminds me of when I left my puter job. Windows 3.1 came out. I
worked with it for a few months then turned in my notice. The song they
played at the going away party, "you are my hero". I went to work in
sales for a magazine distributor, no computer needed. They thought it
was brave of me to change careers. Come to think of it, some may have
wished they had changed to right now. The computer field around here is
a bit . . . crazy. It's also a low paying job if you can find one.


Now some of you know how much I hate windows. Of course, DOS wasn't
much better,


Dale

:-) :-)
 
Old 02-10-2011, 01:07 AM
Keith Dart
 
Default glibc 2.13 warning

=== On Wed, 02/09, Dale wrote: ===
> Now some of you know how much I hate windows. Of course, DOS wasn't
> much better,

===

Yep. I've been using Linux on my desktop since version 1.2, and
UnixWare before that. Some Mac in there too. I avoid Windows like the
plague that it is.

-- Keith Dart

--

-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keith Dart <keith@dartworks.biz>
public key: ID: 19017044
<http://www.dartworks.biz/>
================================================== ===================
 
Old 02-10-2011, 02:50 AM
Philip Webb
 
Default glibc 2.13 warning

110210 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:09:14 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
>> (1) I never use testing versions of system pkgs like Glibc &
> Someone has to or they'll never get tested.

Come on ! -- not on a production system !

>> (2) I have FEATURES="buildsyspkg" in make.conf .
> It didn't help here.

The OP was making a proposal to solve the more general problem,
incl requiring users to adopt (2) by default.

--
========================,,======================== ====================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
 
Old 02-10-2011, 08:32 AM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default glibc 2.13 warning

On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 22:50:44 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:

> > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:09:14 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
> >> (1) I never use testing versions of system pkgs like Glibc &
> > Someone has to or they'll never get tested.
>
> Come on ! -- not on a production system !

Who mentioned production systems?

> >> (2) I have FEATURES="buildsyspkg" in make.conf .
> > It didn't help here.
>
> The OP was making a proposal to solve the more general problem,
> incl requiring users to adopt (2) by default.

No, he was stating that he had a particular setting, although Alan did
suggest it as a default. Either way, it doesn't help with about the
most serious package it's possible to break (I use FEATURES=buildpkg).
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:50 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ę2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org