glibc 2.13 warning
 

On Thursday 10 February 2011 00:02:07 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> 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.

what happens if you remove the entry in /var/db?
From gentoo's point of view, glibc suddenly is not installed. You are free to
choose a version.

glibc 2.13 warning
 

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:10:06 -0800 (PST), Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> > 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.
>
> what happens if you remove the entry in /var/db?
> From gentoo's point of view, glibc suddenly is not installed. You are
> free to choose a version.

That's a good question, I had assumed it was getting the info from the
binpkg, but a grep of the entry in /var/db shows no sign of the warning
message (it's not in the ebuild but in an eblit file) so removing
the db entry would appear to be fruitless.

However, I've already recovered two machines from glibc breakage
this week, I'm not about to do anything to cause any more :(

glibc 2.13 warning
 

On Thursday 10 February 2011 18:24:51 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:10:06 -0800 (PST), Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > what happens if you remove the entry in /var/db?
> > From gentoo's point of view, glibc suddenly is not installed. You are
> > free to choose a version.
>
> That's a good question, I had assumed it was getting the info from the
> binpkg, but a grep of the entry in /var/db shows no sign of the warning
> message (it's not in the ebuild but in an eblit file) so removing
> the db entry would appear to be fruitless.

wtf?

no, the 2.12.1 binpackage does not know which versions are installed. It just
includes a version check.
If no glibc is installed (and removing the /var/db/pkg/sys-libs/glibc-2.13
directory = no glibc installed) then you are free to install any binpkg you
want.

Or, you know, just extract ld.so from a tarball, copy it into /lib, and un-
prelink your system. Then re-install 2.13. Problem solved.

glibc 2.13 warning
 

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:32:20 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> no, the 2.12.1 binpackage does not know which versions are installed.
> It just includes a version check.
> If no glibc is installed (and removing
> the /var/db/pkg/sys-libs/glibc-2.13 directory = no glibc installed)
> then you are free to install any binpkg you want.

Ah, I see what you're getting at now. That should have worked.

> Or, you know, just extract ld.so from a tarball, copy it into /lib, and
> un- prelink your system. Then re-install 2.13. Problem solved.

Except the problem with the binpkg was most significant on the system
without prelinking, the one that broke Postfix. I did consider unpacking
the glibc-2.12 binpkg to / then re-emerging 2.12 to clean up.