| 1 |
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 21:41:24 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Sergei Trofimovich posted on Tue, 08 Aug 2017 16:53:22 +0100 as excerpted: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > The failure happens when live glibc-9999 ebuild is installed: |
| 7 |
> > * QA Notice: Missing gen_usr_ldscript for libm-2.26.90.so * ERROR: |
| 8 |
> > sys-libs/glibc-9999::gentoo failed: |
| 9 |
> > * add those ldscripts |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > The problem here is how upstream glibc version is detected: |
| 12 |
> > dosym ../../$(get_libdir)/libm-${PV}.so |
| 13 |
> > $(alt_usrlibdir)/libm-${PV}.so |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Change to use 'version.h' to pick upstream version. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Interesting that it's libm. See bug #627378 |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/627378 |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> ... where ~arch glibc-2.25-r2 (apparently) allows the symlink creation |
| 22 |
> line above to clobber the original library binary, in usr merge (/lib64 |
| 23 |
> and /usr/lib64 are the same dir) cases, or at least when /usr -> . (aka |
| 24 |
> "reverse" usr merge). |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Comment #4 says it's not new code, thus the "(apparently)" above |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
What is your point there? I'm afraid I lost you. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
(being an eclass) All the glibc ebuilds do this same libm symlinking. |
| 31 |
Live ebuild was broken for quite a while because upstream |
| 32 |
never installed libm-9999.a files. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> but |
| 35 |
> perhaps it's acting differently now due to the recent migration away from |
| 36 |
> eblits? What I know for sure is that the upgrade broke my system until I |
| 37 |
> manually copied the libm binary from the binpkg back into place. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
You can check if it's a new breakage by setting up a chroot: |
| 40 |
- with your '/usr -> .' symlinks set |
| 41 |
- with pre-eblits glibc portage tree by rewinding git ::gentoo |
| 42 |
- install any glibc version from there to chech if the breakage is new |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
I suspect it's not a new breakage. Because glibc does not check |
| 45 |
symlink state on a live system (and it should not). portage does peform |
| 46 |
merge into live system phase and writes two files into the same path. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
portage would be a better place to detect symlink collision and save your system. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
I think this discussion belongs to https://bugs.gentoo.org/627378 |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Sergei |
Archives