On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:18:16AM +0100, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 01/21/04 Marc Redmann wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I wanted to give glibc with nptl a try but emerge gave me this: > > > > USE="nptl" emerge -pv glibc > > > > These are the packages that I would merge, in order: > > > > Calculating dependencies ...done! > > [ebuild U ] sys-libs/glibc-2.3.2-r9 [2.3.2-r3] +nls -pic -build > > > > So can anyone tell me where the nptl USE flag for glibc is, I think it > > should be there ??? > > see http://bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=38622 >
Just for context, the last few comments from bug #38622: > - Additional Comment #11 From Mr. Bones. 2004-01-19 15:47 PST - > > This is not invalid. > > The glibc-2.3.2-r9.ebuild depends on >=sys-devel/gcc-3.3.1-r1 and has been > marked x86 but there is no x86 marked ebuild for >=sys-devel/gcc-3.3.1-r1. > > Repoman complains about state and rightly so as the portage tree is > currently in an inconsistent state. > > > - Additional Comment #12 From SpanKY 2004-01-19 16:16 PST - > > sure it's invalid ... in order to properly use nptl you need to be > using unstable packages (development-sources, gcc, linux-headers, > etc... etc... etc...) > > file a new bug with portage about supporting 'unstable USE flags' > ... changing this bug over to that would carry too much cruft > > > - Additional Comment #13 From Seemant Kulleen 2004-01-19 16:20 PST - > > wouldn't it cause less headaches to have a revision bumped version to > support that flag and throw it in to ~arch? meanwhile this regular ebuild > in arch simply doesn't support nptl at all. It's kind of inconvenient > (looking at the number of people complaining) to have bleeding edge and > stable mix in one ebuild as they are here. > > > - Additional Comment #14 From SpanKY 2004-01-19 16:49 PST - > > since 2.3.3_preXXX is unstable on all archs that 2.3.2-r9 covers and it > has nptl support i've removed nptl from 2.3.2-r9 > > now we shouldnt have people who put nptl into their USE and running a > stable x86 complaining their system is broken > > props to seemant cause he's my dad There has *got* to be a better way to handle this. I may not have all the right answers, but I know a wrong answer when I see one. Good move on removing nptl use support from the stable glibc ebuild. Maybe this seems creepy because the bleeding-edge goodies should have been in kept in the bleeding edge ebuild. Could we convince Portage that, if an ebuild's dependencies are masked, that ebuild is also masked. That way, Portage would keep looking for a suitable version of the ebuild instead of just choking. Would there be drawbacks to this idea? -- Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"? Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action. --Ghost in the Shell
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
