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 <bi...@iinet.net.au> Home in Perth!
