| 1 |
"Martin Herrman" <martin@×××××××.nl> posted |
| 2 |
40bb8d3b0812091105q2cc4d77ar8953e56baba1f1a@××××××××××.com, excerpted |
| 3 |
below, on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:05:00 +0100: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
[snipped] |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
OK, I just checked bugzilla and I bet it's this bug: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=250342 |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
It's a problem that seems specific to the new ~arch glibc-2.9* version |
| 12 |
and the stable portage-2.1.4* series. With either ~arch portage (2.1.6 |
| 13 |
series) or masked portage (2.2_rcs), or with stable glibc-2.6* or ~arch |
| 14 |
glibc-2.8 (so previous to the latest 2.9 version), nobody has yet |
| 15 |
reported a problem, so repeating the above, it seems to require BOTH the |
| 16 |
~arch 2.9 glibc AND the stable 2.1.4* portage. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Thus, three options: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
1) Upgrade portage to the 2.1.6 ~arch series |
| 21 |
2) Downgrade glibc back to the 2.8 series or stable |
| 22 |
3) There are code-hack workarounds reported on the bug. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Note that there are a few other obscure bugs already reported on the new |
| 25 |
glibc, as well, including remote-X problems. So unless you have some |
| 26 |
burning need to run glibc 2.9, I'd choose to revert it. The bugs will be |
| 27 |
fixed in time, but it often takes awhile to track them all down and |
| 28 |
figure out and fix the problems. Try it again in three months or |
| 29 |
whatever. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 33 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 34 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives