| 1 |
Sergei Trofimovich posted on Tue, 08 Aug 2017 16:53:22 +0100 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> The failure happens when live glibc-9999 ebuild is installed: |
| 4 |
> * QA Notice: Missing gen_usr_ldscript for libm-2.26.90.so * ERROR: |
| 5 |
> sys-libs/glibc-9999::gentoo failed: |
| 6 |
> * add those ldscripts |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The problem here is how upstream glibc version is detected: |
| 9 |
> dosym ../../$(get_libdir)/libm-${PV}.so |
| 10 |
> $(alt_usrlibdir)/libm-${PV}.so |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Change to use 'version.h' to pick upstream version. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Interesting that it's libm. See bug #627378 |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/627378 |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
... where ~arch glibc-2.25-r2 (apparently) allows the symlink creation |
| 19 |
line above to clobber the original library binary, in usr merge (/lib64 |
| 20 |
and /usr/lib64 are the same dir) cases, or at least when /usr -> . (aka |
| 21 |
"reverse" usr merge). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Comment #4 says it's not new code, thus the "(apparently)" above, but |
| 24 |
perhaps it's acting differently now due to the recent migration away from |
| 25 |
eblits? What I know for sure is that the upgrade broke my system until I |
| 26 |
manually copied the libm binary from the binpkg back into place. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 30 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 31 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives