On Sunday 31 July 2005 16:24, Duncan wrote: > Simon Strandman posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on > > Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:34:19 +0200: > > Done! Bug #100289 > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100289 > > > > Tell me if I need to provide any more information. > Do note that any issues that might exist would seem to disappear once the > entire system is compiled against the patched glibc. That's why SuSE can > get away with running the patch -- their entire amd64 release will have > been compiled against the patched glibc. Thus, there are no known issues > with doing a stage-1 bootstrap with these patches, since by the time the > system is up and running, it'll all be compiled against the patched glibc. > Likewise, there are no known issues at this time, should one decide to > patch glibc, and then do an emerge --emptytree. In any case, however, > doing your own glibc patching, regardless of what the patch is, is likely > to blacklist any bugs you may file. That's something that may be > worthwhile to keep in mind. > As the reporter of the problem with nano, I'd like to make 1 correction to this report: Recompiling nano and its depencies did not fix the crashes. It just fixed the eating of the file. I did not recompile my entire system, but a crash of such a small and basic app as nano made me not want to do this outside of a chroot, which I currently do not have the means for. I reread my report, and I saw it was not clear that recompiling nano and its dependencies did not fix the crashes. Sorry for the confusion.
Jan Jitse
pgpK3vOdpqVQf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
