| 1 |
2009/2/13 Guillaume Castagnino <casta@×××××.info>: |
| 2 |
> Le vendredi 13 février 2009 18:48:03, Gordon Malm a écrit : |
| 3 |
>> On Friday, February 13, 2009 09:15:18 Guillaume Castagnino wrote: |
| 4 |
>> > In fact, no: glibc-2.9 was allready keyworded on hardened ~x86 in the |
| 5 |
>> > portage tree, and not masked until 2009-02-11. |
| 6 |
>> > So ~x86 hardened was naturally upgraded to glibc 2.9 without any |
| 7 |
>> > intervention. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> And naturally if you're running ~ARCH you should know how to |
| 10 |
>> manipulate /etc/portage. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> > I have no problem to package.unmask it, it's just to know what is the |
| 13 |
>> > reason for this mask :) |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Because sys-libs/glibc-2.8 is about to go stable and stable hardened is not |
| 16 |
>> ready for it. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> > But keep in mind that for ~x86 hardened, this mask has a dependency |
| 19 |
>> > problem, since ~x86 iproute2 depends on glibc that is now masked on |
| 20 |
>> > ~x86 hardened (and was not before 2009-02-11) |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> So put sys-libs/glibc into /etc/portage/package.unmask. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Yes of course. |
| 25 |
> I perfectly know how to do to fix this problem *for me* as ~arch user for many |
| 26 |
> years. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> But what I want to point, is that currently, depdency tree seems to be broken |
| 30 |
> for ~x86 : some packages in the ~x86 tree (iproute2 for example) ask for |
| 31 |
> package not available in ~x86 (glibc). |
| 32 |
> Doesn't it sounds wrong to have such situation in the official tree ? |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
It is not ideal but, as has already been established, it poses only |
| 36 |
the most trivial inconvenience for users such as yourself. On the |
| 37 |
other hand, if that is what it takes to be absolutely assured that |
| 38 |
Hardened Gentoo users who are using the stable tree will continue to |
| 39 |
have a functional system then it is surely a sensible precaution on |
| 40 |
the part of the maintainer. The needs of this demographic should not |
| 41 |
be (potentially) jepoardized so as to prevent the ~arch users from |
| 42 |
having to enter a single line into package.unmask. Under the |
| 43 |
circumstances, what would you have done? |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
In terms of how other packages are stabilised, bear in mind that the |
| 46 |
developers concerned - unlike Gordon - will seldom have the interests |
| 47 |
of the Hardened userbase first and foremost in their minds ... a |
| 48 |
situation exacerbated by the current disparity between the vanilla and |
| 49 |
hardened toolchain/kernel versions and the limited manpower at the |
| 50 |
disposal of the project. Nevertheless, things continue to move |
| 51 |
forwards but there will be occasions - such as this - where special |
| 52 |
measures need to be enacted. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Those of us using a bleeding-edge toolchain might consider thoroughly |
| 55 |
testing the current stable kernel so as to determine whether this |
| 56 |
precaution is indeed necessary. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Regards, |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
--Kerin |
Archives