-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 27.06.2012 15:58, Michael Mol wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> The other big thing I kept hearing about was "try changing
> {this|that|other thing}; it might be affecting glibc, because glibc
> is a whiny b*tch". Are there alternatives to glibc?
>
<SNIP>

Alternatives? Hardly, I think. There are some "lightweight" variants:

- - sys-libs/uclibc
http://www.uclibc.org/

- - dev-libs/dietlibc
http://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/

comes to mind, but afaik they don't have the full functionality of
glibc. uclibc seems to be enough for XFCE, though (there is a hardened
stage4 with XFCE named lilblue made by blueness)

WKR
Hinnerk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP6xooAAoJEJwwOFaNFkYc0awH/0409HsXvLNgHV4PIE6Jn3Ar
vDOP0yxlmnSwCBcaOlmZoXn3nOiY3AlL5EQtqFM2RJdBv1YMPL tyboqLqbff/Im4
U2Akr7qxXu0qZogwnBYKSHDsupqcTUB4PNS6J0HDvCzeBlaZFF 5bgw6P1eD6nRct
A4R2wtIwKEoCbUxzSZxjSG0IGTcPruMlX2yV67Yukvsl+XhjoQ xhkO3DPECoivpx
0Oqu8dP7mIgVe0Sh9nApZTMgsrw3hH5ezDo9reNKROgCDIjegK vqI5Ts8P1XzjZn
68UTN0pelaj3j7wciM9aUYxu48p4J5pTQfE3t4/T5/DVsBlHqHfqR4kBqSG7Dhw=
=PPAJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:58:57 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:

> If you build glibc with CFLAGS="${CFLAGS} -g3", your glibc will be
> very, very broken. Apparently, it's old, known and has been a problem
> for about five years.[1]

Thisd sounds worthy of a bug report, an ebuild allowing you to break
something as critical as glibc without even a warning does not sound good.


--
Neil Bothwick

Ralph's Observation - It is a mistake to allow any mechanical object
to realize that you are in a hurry.

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423149
>
> As it turned out, it was my CFLAGS. Not the ones anyone usually cares
> about, either.
>
> If you build glibc with CFLAGS="${CFLAGS} -g3", your glibc will be
> very, very broken. Apparently, it's old, known and has been a problem
> for about five years.

Thanks for posting this follow-up, I never would have guessed the
additional debug info could cause such problems.

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:58:57 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
>
>> If you build glibc with CFLAGS="${CFLAGS} -g3", your glibc will be
>> very, very broken. Apparently, it's old, known and has been a problem
>> for about five years.[1]
>
> Thisd sounds worthy of a bug report, an ebuild allowing you to break
> something as critical as glibc without even a warning does not sound good.

Take a look at my bugreport: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423149

And then follow through to the bug report it was marked as a duplicate
of. Gentoo devs, at least, know of the problem, but don't want to put
a workaround in the ebuild for it.

Also, even if the ebuild issued a warning, there's no guarantee the
warning would ever be made visible; the system is well and truly hosed
before the 'postinst' stage of the install, so who knows whether or
not the cache-and-show-later warnings would reach the user?

--
:wq

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:45:13 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:

> Also, even if the ebuild issued a warning, there's no guarantee the
> warning would ever be made visible; the system is well and truly hosed
> before the 'postinst' stage of the install, so who knows whether or
> not the cache-and-show-later warnings would reach the user?

There is a facility for an ebuild to check things like this and override
them or refuse to continue, unless you set $I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING.


--
Neil Bothwick

In plumbing, a straight flush is better than a full house.

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:45:13 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
>
>> Also, even if the ebuild issued a warning, there's no guarantee the
>> warning would ever be made visible; the system is well and truly hosed
>> before the 'postinst' stage of the install, so who knows whether or
>> not the cache-and-show-later warnings would reach the user?
>
> There is a facility for an ebuild to check things like this and override
> them or refuse to continue, unless you set $I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING.

I'll file an enhancement request against the ebuild tonight. (I hope,
if I find time.)


--
:wq