| 1 |
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 08:59 +0100, rabbe@×××××××.se wrote: |
| 2 |
> After successfully bootstrapping on some Linux platform one is still using |
| 3 |
> the glibc of the platform I suppose. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
True. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> If it were possible to do a successful |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> emerge glibc |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> would that mean that the prefix gentoo then starts to use the newly |
| 13 |
> emerged glibc? (Maybe I would also have to do a `emerge -e world' |
| 14 |
> afterwards?) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
In theory, yes (and yes). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Would it be a good thing to do? Would it reduce the risk for future |
| 20 |
> failures because of peculiarities of the platform glibc? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Maybe. |
| 23 |
One could think of having a multilib (or plain 32bit) prefix on a plain |
| 24 |
amd64 linux (without multilib)... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Then, about the "doable" question: Is it supposed to be possible to emerge |
| 28 |
> glibc? I gave it a shot on my Fedora Core 6 prefix setup, and it failed at |
| 29 |
> an early stage. I can write a bug report if this should be considered a |
| 30 |
> bug. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Can't say anything here. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
/haubi/ |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Michael Haubenwallner |
| 37 |
Gentoo on a different level |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-alt@g.o mailing list |
Archives