1 |
Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
2 |
> On 03/02/18 07:54, Dale wrote: |
3 |
>> While on this topic, I have a question about glibc. I have it set in |
4 |
>> make.conf to save the binary packages. Generally I use it when I need |
5 |
>> to go back shortly after a upgrade, usually Firefox or something. |
6 |
>> However, this package is different since going back a version isn't a |
7 |
>> good idea. My question tho, what if one does go back a version using |
8 |
>> those saved binary packages? Has anyone ever did it and it work or did |
9 |
>> it and it fail miserably? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> It is perfectly fine to downgrade glibc if you didn't emerge anything |
12 |
> that compiled binaries. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> If you did, you can still downgrade, but then you need to rebuild the |
15 |
> packages that you emerged since the glibc upgrade. qlop is your friend |
16 |
> here; it lets you find out the dates on which you emerged packages. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> This whole thing is not actually special to glibc. Other libraries |
19 |
> work in a similar manner. You can't just link other software against a |
20 |
> new version of the library, then remove the library and replace it |
21 |
> with an older one. It might result in breakage. But glibc is used by |
22 |
> almost everything, it's not "just a library", it is *the* library, and |
23 |
> so it has a special protection to prevent a downgrade. You can bypass |
24 |
> that protection and downgrade anyway, but then you need to know what |
25 |
> you're doing and how to restore your system correctly. If any |
26 |
> sys-devel packages are affected, you might not be able to do it. If |
27 |
> only end-user packages are affected which are not used during an |
28 |
> emerge, then it's quite safe to downgrade. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> |
31 |
> |
32 |
|
33 |
That makes sense. So, if worse comes to worse, downgrade, then emerge |
34 |
-e world if unsure what all has been updated since. If, using qlop or |
35 |
friends, you can figure what was done since the upgrade, emerge those to |
36 |
make sure the linking is correct. At least that is a option that should |
37 |
be doable. That's better than thinking you can't downgrade for any |
38 |
reason, period. |
39 |
|
40 |
I wonder, is this sort of info on Gentoo's wiki? If not, shouldn't it |
41 |
be? I've always read that downgrading is a bad idea and strongly |
42 |
discouraged but if one runs unstable on a regular basis or just hits |
43 |
that random corner case bug, one may run into this even if one doesn't |
44 |
have the experience to know how to put the broken pieces back together |
45 |
again. |
46 |
|
47 |
Thanks for the info. At least there is a option, even if it might get |
48 |
interesting. ;-) |
49 |
|
50 |
Dale |
51 |
|
52 |
:-) :-) |