Re: [gentoo-user] Re: downgrading glibc
On 08/22/2017 07:18 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Nils Freydank > wrote: >> >> BTW, mythtv has no maintainer, might you be interested in a proxied >> maintainership? >> > > I'd encourage somebody to step up and do this - I no longer use it and > MythTV is one of those packages that you really need to use if you > want to maintain it (hardware/etc, plus a fair bit of work). > > If somebody steps up and wants tips please do feel free to ping me, > and I suspect cardoe would also be willing. > > In general though upstream maintains git branches for each of their > releases under fixes/ that track stuff like this. This commit was in > fixes/0.28. These are stable branches and very unlikely to break > anything - and this was the basis of all the updates within a release > on Gentoo previously. The minor releases like 0.28.1 are just tagged > versions off of these branches - 0.28 plus all the fixes up to that > point in time is basically the same as 0.28.1. The ebuild is designed > to make it easy to pull these in - I see that cardoe pointed it at > github so in theory you can just change the hash to the new head and > it will probably pull in all the fixes. > > They're up to 0.29 now. That isn't in the 0.28 fixes branch, and > might need a bit more testing. > I use mythtv on a daily basis, have multiple frontends connecting to a remote backend, but I do not know if the skills I have are enough to even proxy-maintain them, or I'd offer in a heartbeat. The only times I've delved into ebuilds is when they don't work, and my knowledge is quite limited there. Dan
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: downgrading glibc
On 22 August 2017 14:09:39 EEST, Dale wrote: >It may have been you but I was thinking either Walter or Duncan but not >sure. It could be, I read it on -dev too. I'm just not sure who it >was >just know it is gentoo related, since Gentoo is all I'm subscribed to. > >One would think there would be some method to downgrade that is known >to >work and documented. It can be done for lots of other very important >packages but this one, not so much. To me, it's just odd. > >At least the OP found a fix tho. < whew > > >Dale > >:-) :-) > >P. S. Top posting since Neil seems to be on some device that started >it. :-D > > >Neil Bothwick wrote: >> I did it once, some years ago. AFAIR I commented out the version che >k >> in, i think, the glibc-toolchain eclass then emerged the older >> version. Just make sire you have a binary package of the current >> version that you can unpack in / if things go wrong. >> >> On 22 August 2017 13:53:35 EEST, Dale wrote: >> >> Raffaele Belardi wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2017-08-18 at 09:00 +0200, Raffaele Belardi wrote: >> >> I hava a build problem upgrading Mythtv to 0.28.1-r1 [1] >> on an ~amd64 system. The problem is related to a glibc >API >> change [2] introduced in glibc-2.24 and still present in >> glibc-2.25. So I'm thinking to try the build with an >older >> glibc version. Downgrading the system to glibc to 2.23-r3 >> means trouble? If not, an emerge @preserved-rebuild after >> the downgrade will be sufficient to not break the rest of >> the system? I suppose a quickpkg of the whole world >before >> the downgrade would be a good idea, just in case... >> thanks, raffaele [1] >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=604430 [2] >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=575232 >> >> Just as follow up, inspired by [2] I fixed the mythtv build >> issue by adding #include to videosource.cpp >> and continuing the build with ebuild instead of emerge. >raffaele >> >> >> >> >> Just a FYI, some have been able to downgrade and it work. >However, you >> have to be prepared for that beforehand I think. I've seen it >posted >> before but can't recall WHO it was. I was hoping they would >reply but >> either they didn't see your post or they are no longer >subscribed. >> >> While it may be possible, it is risky and not recommended. It's >one >> thing that I wish they had a known path to downgrade for. It's >one of >> those, you don't know it's going to break something until it does >and >> you have little or no options. >> >> Glad you got a workaround tho. Maybe some more info will pop up >later. >> >> Dale >> >> :-) :-) >> >> >> -- >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. :P -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: downgrading glibc
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Nils Freydank wrote: > Am Dienstag, 22. August 2017, 09:01:07 CEST schrieb Raffaele Belardi: >> […] >> > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=604430 >> > [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=575232 >> >> Just as follow up, inspired by [2] I fixed the mythtv build issue by >> adding #include to videosource.cpp and continuing the >> build with ebuild instead of emerge. > Great! In general, to improve Gentoo a bit further, you could create a patch > at this point, test applying it via /etc/portage/patches/ and add it to the > bugtracker (or paste it here or in IRC asking someone to paste it in your > name) ;-) > Per the comment I made in the bug, if you're going to patch, I'd use upstream's patch - the commit for 0.28 is: https://github.com/MythTV/mythtv/commit/b012ff0f6b284969183863d42a6a14eb77ed0a1d In general it is ALWAYS better to use the upstream patch. Plus if you need to get a Gentoo dev to commit it for you you'll get less push-back that way if you reference it in a bug. > > BTW, mythtv has no maintainer, might you be interested in a proxied > maintainership? > I'd encourage somebody to step up and do this - I no longer use it and MythTV is one of those packages that you really need to use if you want to maintain it (hardware/etc, plus a fair bit of work). If somebody steps up and wants tips please do feel free to ping me, and I suspect cardoe would also be willing. In general though upstream maintains git branches for each of their releases under fixes/ that track stuff like this. This commit was in fixes/0.28. These are stable branches and very unlikely to break anything - and this was the basis of all the updates within a release on Gentoo previously. The minor releases like 0.28.1 are just tagged versions off of these branches - 0.28 plus all the fixes up to that point in time is basically the same as 0.28.1. The ebuild is designed to make it easy to pull these in - I see that cardoe pointed it at github so in theory you can just change the hash to the new head and it will probably pull in all the fixes. They're up to 0.29 now. That isn't in the 0.28 fixes branch, and might need a bit more testing. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: downgrading glibc
On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 15:34 +0200, Nils Freydank wrote: > Am Dienstag, 22. August 2017, 09:01:07 CEST schrieb Raffaele Belardi: > > […] > > > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=604430 > > > [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=575232 > > > > Just as follow up, inspired by [2] I fixed the mythtv build issue > > by > > adding #include to videosource.cpp and continuing > > the > > build with ebuild instead of emerge. > > Great! In general, to improve Gentoo a bit further, you could create > a patch > at this point, test applying it via /etc/portage/patches/ and add it > to the > bugtracker (or paste it here or in IRC asking someone to paste it in > your > name) ;-) I agree that would be the correct way. My intention was to add a comment in the bugtracker stating the above but things have already evolved as you noticed. > (I guess you can avoid that in this case as another dev said that bug > is fixed > upstream now.) > > BTW, mythtv has no maintainer, might you be interested in a proxied > maintainership? Not sure about the implications (read: effort), mythtv is a huge beast... raffaele
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: downgrading glibc
Am Dienstag, 22. August 2017, 09:01:07 CEST schrieb Raffaele Belardi: > […] > > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=604430 > > [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=575232 > > Just as follow up, inspired by [2] I fixed the mythtv build issue by > adding #include to videosource.cpp and continuing the > build with ebuild instead of emerge. Great! In general, to improve Gentoo a bit further, you could create a patch at this point, test applying it via /etc/portage/patches/ and add it to the bugtracker (or paste it here or in IRC asking someone to paste it in your name) ;-) (I guess you can avoid that in this case as another dev said that bug is fixed upstream now.) BTW, mythtv has no maintainer, might you be interested in a proxied maintainership? Greetings, Nils -- GPG fingerprint: '00EF D31F 1B60 D5DB ADB8 31C1 C0EC E696 0E54 475B' Nils Freydank signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: downgrading glibc
It may have been you but I was thinking either Walter or Duncan but not sure. It could be, I read it on -dev too. I'm just not sure who it was just know it is gentoo related, since Gentoo is all I'm subscribed to. One would think there would be some method to downgrade that is known to work and documented. It can be done for lots of other very important packages but this one, not so much. To me, it's just odd. At least the OP found a fix tho. < whew > Dale :-) :-) P. S. Top posting since Neil seems to be on some device that started it. :-D Neil Bothwick wrote: > I did it once, some years ago. AFAIR I commented out the version che k > in, i think, the glibc-toolchain eclass then emerged the older > version. Just make sire you have a binary package of the current > version that you can unpack in / if things go wrong. > > On 22 August 2017 13:53:35 EEST, Dale wrote: > > Raffaele Belardi wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-08-18 at 09:00 +0200, Raffaele Belardi wrote: > > I hava a build problem upgrading Mythtv to 0.28.1-r1 [1] > on an ~amd64 system. The problem is related to a glibc API > change [2] introduced in glibc-2.24 and still present in > glibc-2.25. So I'm thinking to try the build with an older > glibc version. Downgrading the system to glibc to 2.23-r3 > means trouble? If not, an emerge @preserved-rebuild after > the downgrade will be sufficient to not break the rest of > the system? I suppose a quickpkg of the whole world before > the downgrade would be a good idea, just in case... > thanks, raffaele [1] > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=604430 [2] > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=575232 > > Just as follow up, inspired by [2] I fixed the mythtv build > issue by adding #include to videosource.cpp > and continuing the build with ebuild instead of emerge. raffaele > > > > > Just a FYI, some have been able to downgrade and it work. However, you > have to be prepared for that beforehand I think. I've seen it posted > before but can't recall WHO it was. I was hoping they would reply but > either they didn't see your post or they are no longer subscribed. > > While it may be possible, it is risky and not recommended. It's one > thing that I wish they had a known path to downgrade for. It's one of > those, you don't know it's going to break something until it does and > you have little or no options. > > Glad you got a workaround tho. Maybe some more info will pop up later. > > Dale > > :-) :-) > > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: downgrading glibc
I did it once, some years ago. AFAIR I commented out the version che k in, i think, the glibc-toolchain eclass then emerged the older version. Just make sire you have a binary package of the current version that you can unpack in / if things go wrong. On 22 August 2017 13:53:35 EEST, Dale wrote: >Raffaele Belardi wrote: >> On Fri, 2017-08-18 at 09:00 +0200, Raffaele Belardi wrote: >>> I hava a build problem upgrading Mythtv to 0.28.1-r1 [1] on an >~amd64 >>> system. The problem is related to a glibc API change [2] introduced >>> in >>> glibc-2.24 and still present in glibc-2.25. So I'm thinking to try >>> the >>> build with an older glibc version. >>> >>> Downgrading the system to glibc to 2.23-r3 means trouble? >>> If not, an emerge @preserved-rebuild after the downgrade will be >>> sufficient to not break the rest of the system? >>> I suppose a quickpkg of the whole world before the downgrade would >be >>> a >>> good idea, just in case... >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> raffaele >>> >>> >>> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=604430 >>> [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=575232 >> Just as follow up, inspired by [2] I fixed the mythtv build issue by >> adding #include to videosource.cpp and continuing >the >> build with ebuild instead of emerge. >> >> raffaele >> >> > >Just a FYI, some have been able to downgrade and it work. However, you >have to be prepared for that beforehand I think. I've seen it posted >before but can't recall WHO it was. I was hoping they would reply but >either they didn't see your post or they are no longer subscribed. > >While it may be possible, it is risky and not recommended. It's one >thing that I wish they had a known path to downgrade for. It's one of >those, you don't know it's going to break something until it does and >you have little or no options. > >Glad you got a workaround tho. Maybe some more info will pop up later. > >Dale > >:-) :-) -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: downgrading glibc
Raffaele Belardi wrote: > On Fri, 2017-08-18 at 09:00 +0200, Raffaele Belardi wrote: >> I hava a build problem upgrading Mythtv to 0.28.1-r1 [1] on an ~amd64 >> system. The problem is related to a glibc API change [2] introduced >> in >> glibc-2.24 and still present in glibc-2.25. So I'm thinking to try >> the >> build with an older glibc version. >> >> Downgrading the system to glibc to 2.23-r3 means trouble? >> If not, an emerge @preserved-rebuild after the downgrade will be >> sufficient to not break the rest of the system? >> I suppose a quickpkg of the whole world before the downgrade would be >> a >> good idea, just in case... >> >> thanks, >> >> raffaele >> >> >> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=604430 >> [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=575232 > Just as follow up, inspired by [2] I fixed the mythtv build issue by > adding #include to videosource.cpp and continuing the > build with ebuild instead of emerge. > > raffaele > > Just a FYI, some have been able to downgrade and it work. However, you have to be prepared for that beforehand I think. I've seen it posted before but can't recall WHO it was. I was hoping they would reply but either they didn't see your post or they are no longer subscribed. While it may be possible, it is risky and not recommended. It's one thing that I wish they had a known path to downgrade for. It's one of those, you don't know it's going to break something until it does and you have little or no options. Glad you got a workaround tho. Maybe some more info will pop up later. Dale :-) :-)
[gentoo-user] Re: downgrading glibc
On Fri, 2017-08-18 at 09:00 +0200, Raffaele Belardi wrote: > I hava a build problem upgrading Mythtv to 0.28.1-r1 [1] on an ~amd64 > system. The problem is related to a glibc API change [2] introduced > in > glibc-2.24 and still present in glibc-2.25. So I'm thinking to try > the > build with an older glibc version. > > Downgrading the system to glibc to 2.23-r3 means trouble? > If not, an emerge @preserved-rebuild after the downgrade will be > sufficient to not break the rest of the system? > I suppose a quickpkg of the whole world before the downgrade would be > a > good idea, just in case... > > thanks, > > raffaele > > > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=604430 > [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=575232 Just as follow up, inspired by [2] I fixed the mythtv build issue by adding #include to videosource.cpp and continuing the build with ebuild instead of emerge. raffaele
