Bug#991729: With glibc 2.34, it seems more is broken

2021-08-06 Thread Shachar Shemesh
On 05/08/2021 22:47, Daniel Schepler wrote: On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 10:45 PM Shachar Shemesh wrote: Can you run fakeroot-ng with "-l" and attach the generated log file? Here's the log from the run where make fails. The expected happened: 3331985: Unknown syscall 435(NONE) 3331985: Unknown

Bug#991729: With glibc 2.34, it seems more is broken

2021-08-05 Thread Daniel Schepler
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 10:45 PM Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Can you run fakeroot-ng with "-l" and attach the generated log file? Here's the log from the run where make fails. -- Daniel Schepler fakeroot-ng.log Description: Binary data

Bug#991729: With glibc 2.34, it seems more is broken

2021-08-02 Thread Shachar Shemesh
On 03/08/2021 1:07, Daniel Schepler wrote: Since I did a test upgrade of a container (non-Debian) to glibc 2.34, it seems I no longer need anything as esoteric as python asyncio.subprocess to trigger a similar error: Can you run fakeroot-ng with "-l" and attach the generated log file?

Bug#991729: With glibc 2.34, it seems more is broken

2021-08-02 Thread Daniel Schepler
Since I did a test upgrade of a container (non-Debian) to glibc 2.34, it seems I no longer need anything as esoteric as python asyncio.subprocess to trigger a similar error: (lfs chroot) lfs:/tmp/make-test$ cat Makefile all: echo Nothing to do (lfs chroot) lfs:/tmp/make-test$ make echo