| 1 |
On 12/10/08, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> OK, I just checked bugzilla and I bet it's this bug: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=250342 |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> It's a problem that seems specific to the new ~arch glibc-2.9* version |
| 8 |
> and the stable portage-2.1.4* series. With either ~arch portage (2.1.6 |
| 9 |
> series) or masked portage (2.2_rcs), or with stable glibc-2.6* or ~arch |
| 10 |
> glibc-2.8 (so previous to the latest 2.9 version), nobody has yet |
| 11 |
> reported a problem, so repeating the above, it seems to require BOTH the |
| 12 |
> ~arch 2.9 glibc AND the stable 2.1.4* portage. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Thus, three options: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> 1) Upgrade portage to the 2.1.6 ~arch series |
| 17 |
> 2) Downgrade glibc back to the 2.8 series or stable |
| 18 |
> 3) There are code-hack workarounds reported on the bug. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Note that there are a few other obscure bugs already reported on the new |
| 21 |
> glibc, as well, including remote-X problems. So unless you have some |
| 22 |
> burning need to run glibc 2.9, I'd choose to revert it. The bugs will be |
| 23 |
> fixed in time, but it often takes awhile to track them all down and |
| 24 |
> figure out and fix the problems. Try it again in three months or |
| 25 |
> whatever. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Hi Duncan, |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
thanks a lot for this link! This seems to be exactly the issue I have |
| 30 |
(and also caused by the wish to have GCC 4.3). I will downgrade glibc |
| 31 |
(and gcc) to have a stable system again. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Currently I'm at work, but will get back to you asap and inform you on |
| 34 |
the result. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Regards, |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Martin |
Archives