1 |
Perhaps a USE flag could be created to enable the glibc patches, then a |
2 |
emerge --newuse could recompile glibc and the problem apps (or |
3 |
everything); maybe a mini-howto document would also be helpful. |
4 |
|
5 |
I would certainly like an easy way to enable any "free" performance |
6 |
boost I can get! |
7 |
|
8 |
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 07:24:55 -0700 |
9 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
10 |
|
11 |
> Simon Strandman posted <42E55ADB.8030201@×××××.com>, excerpted |
12 |
> below, on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:34:19 +0200: |
13 |
> |
14 |
> > Done! Bug #100289 |
15 |
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100289 |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > Tell me if I need to provide any more information. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> For those following the thread here, but not keeping up with the bug, |
20 |
> testing reveals that at least one app, nano, crashes (when searching), |
21 |
> with the patches applied to glibc, until nano is remerged against the |
22 |
> new glibc. Yes, that means that the issue goes away with a remerge, |
23 |
> but there could be other apps similarly affected. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> There are two factors making this *VERY* serious. (1) nano just |
26 |
> happens to be the text editor used in the config file editing |
27 |
> examples in the installation handbook, so there are likely more |
28 |
> Gentoo users for that particular app than in the normal Linux using |
29 |
> population. (2) The crash /can/ mean it eats the file it was |
30 |
> editing. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Taken together, that makes the issue a critical one indeed, |
33 |
> particularly since the users that are still using nano rather than |
34 |
> having formed their own preferences (ignoring for the moment those |
35 |
> that have actually made an informed decision to use nano, having |
36 |
> tried other editors), are also likely the ones not to have backups of |
37 |
> their critical config files. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> Additionally, where there's app crashing due to a change in glibc, |
40 |
> there are bound to be more. Thus, integration of the patches is on |
41 |
> hold for now, and likely will be for some time, until something a bit |
42 |
> safer, either in strategy or in patches, can be devised. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> Thus, anyone hoping to run these in an official Gentoo glibc should be |
45 |
> preparing to do their own glibc patching, with each new version, for |
46 |
> awhile. Additionally, it could blacklist any further bugs you file, |
47 |
> at least until your whole toolchain and any misbehaving apps have been |
48 |
> remerged against the patched glibc. |
49 |
> |
50 |
> Do note that any issues that might exist would seem to disappear once |
51 |
> the entire system is compiled against the patched glibc. That's why |
52 |
> SuSE can get away with running the patch -- their entire amd64 |
53 |
> release will have been compiled against the patched glibc. Thus, |
54 |
> there are no known issues with doing a stage-1 bootstrap with these |
55 |
> patches, since by the time the system is up and running, it'll all be |
56 |
> compiled against the patched glibc. Likewise, there are no known |
57 |
> issues at this time, should one decide to patch glibc, and then do an |
58 |
> emerge --emptytree. In any case, however, doing your own glibc |
59 |
> patching, regardless of what the patch is, is likely to blacklist any |
60 |
> bugs you may file. That's something that may be worthwhile to keep |
61 |
> in mind. |
62 |
-- |
63 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |