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
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
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 happe
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 wa
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 prod
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 d
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 do
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 chec
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 i
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 m
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
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, gli
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 comin
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
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 br
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
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 vers
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
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'
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://
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/34080
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 ignora
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
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 rest
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
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.
--
Neil Bothwick
All mail what i send is thoughly proof-red, definately!
signature.asc
Description: PGP signat
26 matches
Mail list logo
