Re: [gentoo-user] 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.
Re: [gentoo-user] 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. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] 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). signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] 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.
Re: [gentoo-user] 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 :( signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 00:03:36 -0500, Allan Gottlieb wrote: The postfix issue is separate and needs a glibc downgrade to fix. I am not sure I understand. I did the glibc upgrade and have not downgraded. I run postfix and my mail is coming and going. I had thought/hoped that postfix does work with the new glibc if you don't do prelinking (which is my configuration: 2-13 glibc, postfix, no prelink). If glibc-2.13 kills postfix w/o prelinking then perhaps, I am just lucky and my overall configuration is such that it works for me. I think you're lucky, as is Volker. A number of people, me included, have had Postfix fail with postfix/local[4452]: fatal: unable to determine open file limit postfix/master[4001]: warning: process /usr/lib/postfix/local pid 4452 exit status 1 postfix/master[4001]: warning: /usr/lib/postfix/local: bad command startup -- throttling Prelinking is not involved, so it must be down to how you have configured Postfix, probably the local delivery settings. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning
On Wed, Feb 09 2011, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 00:03:36 -0500, Allan Gottlieb wrote: The postfix issue is separate and needs a glibc downgrade to fix. I am not sure I understand. I did the glibc upgrade and have not downgraded. I run postfix and my mail is coming and going. I had thought/hoped that postfix does work with the new glibc if you don't do prelinking (which is my configuration: 2-13 glibc, postfix, no prelink). If glibc-2.13 kills postfix w/o prelinking then perhaps, I am just lucky and my overall configuration is such that it works for me. I think you're lucky, as is Volker. A number of people, me included, have had Postfix fail with postfix/local[4452]: fatal: unable to determine open file limit postfix/master[4001]: warning: process /usr/lib/postfix/local pid 4452 exit status 1 postfix/master[4001]: warning: /usr/lib/postfix/local: bad command startup -- throttling Prelinking is not involved, so it must be down to how you have configured Postfix, probably the local delivery settings. Thanks neil for the explanation and thank you my lucky stars for sparing me this mail failure. allan
Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning
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. ;-) Greetings, Nils -- Nils Holland * Ti Systems, Wunstorf-Luthe (Germany) Powered by GNU/Linux since 1998
Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning
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. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] 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
Re: [gentoo-user] 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 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] 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
Re: [gentoo-user] 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. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] 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
Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning
On 02/07/2011 02:34:52 PM, 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. Has anybody tried this http://psykil.livejournal.com/340806.html -- Helmut Jarausch Lehrstuhl fuer Numerische Mathematik RWTH - Aachen University D 52056 Aachen, Germany
Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:37:41 +0100, Helmut Jarausch 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. Has anybody tried this http://psykil.livejournal.com/340806.html That's the fix for the prelinking problem, which is covered in more detail in the forum thread it links to, especially how to recover when you get a kernel panic. The postfix issue is separate and needs a glibc downgrade to fix. -- Neil Bothwick War does not determine who is right -- only who is left. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning
Apparently, though unproven, at 15:34 on Monday 07 February 2011, Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: 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. hehe, I'm safe :-) I've hardmasked =glibc-2.12 ever since the blatantly untested cock up that was the first testing version of glibc-2.12 hit the tree -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:49:33 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: hehe, I'm safe :-) I've hardmasked =glibc-2.12 ever since the blatantly untested cock up that was the first testing version of glibc-2.12 hit the tree Now if only you could mask your smugness plugin :P
Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:23 on Wednesday 09 February 2011, Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:49:33 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: hehe, I'm safe :-) I've hardmasked =glibc-2.12 ever since the blatantly untested cock up that was the first testing version of glibc-2.12 hit the tree Now if only you could mask your smugness plugin :P I'm trying. I'm not succeeding. Wetware works different to software. sigh -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 00:36:24 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: Wetware works different to software. Yes, you can't reboot it whenever it annoys you. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning
On Tue, Feb 08 2011, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:37:41 +0100, Helmut Jarausch 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. Has anybody tried this http://psykil.livejournal.com/340806.html That's the fix for the prelinking problem, which is covered in more detail in the forum thread it links to, especially how to recover when you get a kernel panic. The postfix issue is separate and needs a glibc downgrade to fix. I am not sure I understand. I did the glibc upgrade and have not downgraded. I run postfix and my mail is coming and going. I had thought/hoped that postfix does work with the new glibc if you don't do prelinking (which is my configuration: 2-13 glibc, postfix, no prelink). If glibc-2.13 kills postfix w/o prelinking then perhaps, I am just lucky and my overall configuration is such that it works for me. I am assuming that a glibc fix will be forthcoming quickly so am not anxious to downgrade, but am even less anxious to have postfix suddenly stop working. Thanks for keeping us informed. allan
Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning
On Monday 07 February 2011 13:34:52 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.
sys-libs/glibc
Available versions: (2.2) [P]*2.2.5-r10!s 2.5-r4!s **2.5.1!s 2.6.1!s
(~)2.7-r2!s 2.8_p20080602-r1!s 2.9_p20081201-r2!s (~)2.9_p20081201-r3!s
2.10.1-r1!s 2.11.2-r3!s (~)2.11.3!s (~)2.12.1-r3!s{tbz2} (~)2.12.2!s{tbz2}
(~)2.13!s{tbz2}
{build crosscompile_opts_headers-only debug gd glibc-compat20 glibc-
omitfp hardened multilib nls nptl nptlonly profile selinux vanilla}
Installed versions: 2.13(2.2)!s{tbz2}(23:14:36 05.02.2011)(gd glibc-
omitfp multilib nls -crosscompile_opts_headers-only -debug -hardened -profile -
selinux -vanilla)
Homepage:http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html
Description: GNU libc6 (also called glibc2) C library
I] mail-mta/postfix
Available versions: 2.6.5 2.6.6 (~)2.6.7 2.7.1 2.7.2{tbz2} (~)2.8.0-
r1{tbz2} {cdb dovecot-sasl hardened ipv6 ldap mbox mysql nis pam postgres sasl
selinux sqlite ssl vda}
Installed versions: 2.8.0-r1{tbz2}(20:00:10 25.01.2011)(ipv6 mbox mysql
pam postgres sasl sqlite ssl -cdb -dovecot-sasl -hardened -ldap -nis -selinux
-vda)
Homepage:http://www.postfix.org/
Description: A fast and secure drop-in replacement for sendmail.
don't use prelink - but postfix still Works For Me(tm)
Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning
On Monday 07 February 2011, 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. confirmed, prelink kills the system! running prelink -u restores it (if you happen to have a root shell open) so I'm disabling prelink for now, glibc-2.12.2 does not build with latest binutils... Rudmer
Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning
On Mon, Feb 07 2011, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
On Monday 07 February 2011 13:34:52 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.
sys-libs/glibc
Available versions: (2.2) [P]*2.2.5-r10!s 2.5-r4!s **2.5.1!s 2.6.1!s
(~)2.7-r2!s 2.8_p20080602-r1!s 2.9_p20081201-r2!s (~)2.9_p20081201-r3!s
2.10.1-r1!s 2.11.2-r3!s (~)2.11.3!s (~)2.12.1-r3!s{tbz2} (~)2.12.2!s{tbz2}
(~)2.13!s{tbz2}
{build crosscompile_opts_headers-only debug gd glibc-compat20 glibc-
omitfp hardened multilib nls nptl nptlonly profile selinux vanilla}
Installed versions: 2.13(2.2)!s{tbz2}(23:14:36 05.02.2011)(gd glibc-
omitfp multilib nls -crosscompile_opts_headers-only -debug -hardened -profile
-
selinux -vanilla)
Homepage:http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html
Description: GNU libc6 (also called glibc2) C library
I] mail-mta/postfix
Available versions: 2.6.5 2.6.6 (~)2.6.7 2.7.1 2.7.2{tbz2} (~)2.8.0-
r1{tbz2} {cdb dovecot-sasl hardened ipv6 ldap mbox mysql nis pam postgres
sasl
selinux sqlite ssl vda}
Installed versions: 2.8.0-r1{tbz2}(20:00:10 25.01.2011)(ipv6 mbox mysql
pam postgres sasl sqlite ssl -cdb -dovecot-sasl -hardened -ldap -nis -selinux
-vda)
Homepage:http://www.postfix.org/
Description: A fast and secure drop-in replacement for sendmail.
don't use prelink - but postfix still Works For Me(tm)
Same for me. I just checked and several bugs have been opened.
Scary.
allan gottlieb
Re: [gentoo-user] glibc 2.13 warning
On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 15:16:20 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: don't use prelink - but postfix still Works For Me(tm) That's odd, it broke local deliveries for me - and others. Fortunately, nothing was lost, it just stayed in the queue while I recompiled glibc. -- Neil Bothwick Am I ignorant or apathetic? I don't know and don't care! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
