| 1 |
On Friday 11 November 2005 22:53, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hola, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Short version is that via bug 112082 plus glibc upstream doing |
| 5 |
> something stupid, a lovely bug has reared it's head. Basically, |
| 6 |
> users upgrading from glibc-2.3.5.200*.ebuild have libc.so-2.3.90.so, |
| 7 |
> and glibc-2.3.6.ebuild has libc.so-2.3.6.so . |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> ldconfig views 2.3.90 as greater then 2.3.6; during merge, portage |
| 10 |
> views 2.3.5.200* -> 2.3.6 as an upgrade, and triggers an ldconfig |
| 11 |
> call. Said call, and said upstream weird lib versioning results in |
| 12 |
> ld.so.6 being reset from libc-2.3.6.so to libc-2.3.90.so , which |
| 13 |
> obviously gets a bit screwed up when unmerge comes around and yanks |
| 14 |
> the lib. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Az split off a patch for it (after lots of fun digging) to correct it; |
| 17 |
> we're going to need a rc8 covering this one offhand, since it's |
| 18 |
> invalid linking in certain cases. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Thoughts/complaints/issues/further testing? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Short answer: No. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Long answer: This is not a regression; you'll find the same problem in stable. |
| 25 |
It's an area where a slight error can break lots of things that are even |
| 26 |
slightly non-standard. This case where the bug is occurring is very |
| 27 |
non-standard and has not cropped up before (or at least hasn't been brought |
| 28 |
to anybody's attention) in the time since I (and you) have been with the |
| 29 |
project. Lastly, 2.3.5.200* is/was hard masked. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
My preference would be to put the patch into trunk and release .54_pre1 within |
| 32 |
the next 24 hours. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives