| 1 |
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:46:04 -0500, Matt Connell (Gmail) wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 16:37 -0400, Alan Grimes wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Matt Connell (Gmail) wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 15:09 -0400, Alan Grimes wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > - sys-libs/glibc-2.32-r7::gentoo (masked by: package.mask) |
| 7 |
> > > This is the current stable version of glibc, which would satisfy the |
| 8 |
> > > ebuild. You have it masked manually, it would seem. |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > Did you leave yourself a comment as to why it was masked? |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Well, I got 2.33 installed on me and the system does not allow that |
| 13 |
> > package to downgarde, for good reason... I masked the old version to |
| 14 |
> > stop it from bitching at me that it can't downgrade that package. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I don't for sure whether or not glibc is supposed to be able to be |
| 17 |
> downgraded or not. If not, then it sounds like using the ~arch version |
| 18 |
> of it is biting you in the backside. A cautionary tale about not using |
| 19 |
> the ~arch keyword for mission-critical packages unless the situation is |
| 20 |
> dire. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The chromium-90.* ebuilds apply a patch to work with glibc-2.3.3, you |
| 23 |
might try that on a 91 ebuild. Read bug #769989 first. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Our bikinis are exciting. They are simply the tops. |
Archives