| 1 |
I have glibc-2.12.1 running on two ~x86 systems with no problems so far. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Hi, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Anyone successfully built and using glibc-2.12.1 yet? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I see the tree just pushed an update down from 2.11.2 to 2.12.1, and |
| 8 |
> downgrading that package is decidedly non-trivial. Only comment I can find at |
| 9 |
> this early stage is flameeye's blog, and this makes me quadruple nervous: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> And if you say that “the new GLIBC works for me”, are you saying that the |
| 15 |
> package itself builds or if it’s actually integrated correctly? Because, you |
| 16 |
> know, I used to rebuild the whole system whenever I made a change to basic |
| 17 |
> system packages when I maintained Gentoo/FreeBSD, and saying that it’s ready |
| 18 |
> for ~arch when you haven’t even rebuilt the system (and you haven’t, or you |
| 19 |
> would have noticed that m4 was broken) is definitely something I’d define as |
| 20 |
> reckless and I’d venture to say you’re not good material to work on the |
| 21 |
> quality assurance status. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> “correctness” in the case of the system C library would be “it a t least |
| 24 |
> leaves the system set building and running”; glibc 2.12 does not work this |
| 25 |
> way. |
Archives