| 1 |
As of commit ed047cf2c607277629c20bf1a88d727a7f9bb79e we have |
| 2 |
sys-libs/glibc-2.23 in ~arch. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
This breaks *lots* of stuff. For example coreutils was broken [1]. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
According to the tracker bug [2] most of the breakage was introduced in |
| 8 |
a gentoo-specific patch. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
On the upstream mailinglist [3] people seem to be concerned about the |
| 11 |
change: |
| 12 |
" |
| 13 |
It's risky enough that I think it's worth doing a distro rebuild with |
| 14 |
that change to find out what, if anything, breaks - who do I talk to to |
| 15 |
make that happen? |
| 16 |
" |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
So why on earth are we applying a random patch that upstream is not |
| 20 |
using, *and* unleashing it on ~arch without any of the usual precautions |
| 21 |
like masking the package until some of the issues have been smoked out? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I very strongly suggest bumping the glibc ebuild, removing the patch in |
| 24 |
the bump, and masking the broken version. Then asking people to test the |
| 25 |
patched version to smoke out failures, and in a few months we can |
| 26 |
consider re-enabling this tomfoolery. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
(And with very strongly suggest I mean QA might just do it because |
| 29 |
breaking random shit is not cool, yo. So please fix it soon) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
At this point I'm a little bit confused why Gentoo users are used as |
| 32 |
guinea pigs and stuff gets broken on purpose. It's not how one should do |
| 33 |
things, and excuses like "it finds bugs" are just lame excuses. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
So anyway. Please not to break things. For prosperous happy of users! |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/580014 |
| 40 |
[2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=575232#c7 |
| 41 |
[3] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-11/msg00253.html |
Archives